@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
If they are frequently changing are they really "standards" ? I dont think so
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
There could be one completely implausible, obviously incorrect choice for each question. Under those circumstances it would be easy to get 100% of the answers wrong without knowing any of the correct answers.
No such thing on a properly constructed, validated exam. All answers are plausible.
Really? Any test I've ever taken had at least one if not two obviously implausible answers.
Clearly not a properly constructed, validated exam
@KOYNGUY said:
PCGS and NGC have been stable? None of the original graders are
still grading for any of them. Standards are clearly different over four decades. There were no 70's until the later 80's. Now they are everywhere. Newer coins are better made, but grade inflation has affected all the 60 and up coins. Ownership has changed for all as well, PCGS, 3 owners, NGC 2 owners, ANACS 4, ICG 2. I'd say the only thing stable is change. J.P.
Stable was not referring to ownership but to application of standards. While there MAY have been a slight relaxation over 30 years, there has not been a significant deviation as happened with PCI, ANACS and ICG. As a result, those companies feel into the second tier because the range of grades for the same coin during different time frames is significant.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
I don't think any of those rules are enforced nearly enough to call them "hard and fast", and I think I could find an example of each, to the contrary, in about 5 minutes total in the HA archives. 1921 Peace is the first coin that comes to mind, but im tired and don't want to go down the rabbit hole tonight. Another time....
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
From what I see, in reality, those so-called hard and fast rules either aren’t rules or aren’t hard and fast ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m going to assume you were comparing prices on slabbed coins at FUN, and not really the coins. This assessment comes from how I perceive you’ve seen the rise of JA being an employee to being an employer. I prefer PCGS and understand the niche JA has carved out for himself and the investors in his company.In summation , I’d say competition is good and there are more eyes on the critics and critiques than on the coins, at this juncture.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
I agree with others saying these are not hard and fast rules.
As a rule, MS67 1921 Peace's can come weakly struck.
I see many coins in 65 or higher holders that are not well struck even factoring in normal strike characteristics for a given date and MM
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
I don't think any of those rules are enforced nearly enough to call them "hard and fast", and I think I could find an example of each, to the contrary, in about 5 minutes total in the HA archives. 1921 Peace is the first coin that comes to mind, but im tired and don't want to go down the rabbit hole tonight. Another time....
Perhaps I used the wrong term there. Clearly there are other considerations and compensating factors and exceptions for every rule. And then there are of course the variation, mistakes, and oversight/error beyond that so I know you can find the examples you speak of easily. But I think to provide and publish standards like this is a big step forward and progress vs the companies that don't and leave you guessing why your coin didn't grade higher.
@stockdude_ said:
I see many coins in 65 or higher holders that are not well struck even factoring in normal strike characteristics for a given date and MM
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
I don’t understand why strike is given so little attention by the major grading agencies. Seems to me weak er strikes should preclude grades like 67 or better altogether and lower the grades of 66 and 65 coins. I am talking about dates that normally come strong for these coins
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
The PCGS grading guide book I posted about 20 posts back.
Therein lies the challenge is for us to determine if they've deviated from their standards or is it just statistical variation? We get hung up on misgraded coins in this forum, but we have to allow TPGs a margin of error or consistency because it's a subjective process run by humans. No TPG can get it 100% right. When you grade millions of coins there's going to be tens of thousands of errors.
My current focus is CACG & PCGS material but have slabs from all 5 TPG. I simply pick out nice coins however bulk deals, estates I acquire generally one has to take it all. So I just adjust landing vector (factor offer accordingly).
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
The PCGS grading guide book I posted about 20 posts back.
You mean the grading guide written by particular PCGS graders at one particular point in time (28 years ago, no less). No written grading standards matter very much. They are summaries at best and often not reflective of reality.
I have many different grading guides but would be one of the first to say I found the PCGS book to be of little use. It does have some nice pictures but most of the grading information sounds more like a horoscope than pertinent information. Seriously, Brown and Dunn from decades before has line drawings with arrows pointing to specific wear points along with written descriptions. The PCGS book will have information such as "Details show more wear".
Which source would you prefer? James
The grading standards themselves are fluid. Grading standards aren’t chiseled into stone at PCGS or any of the TPGs, for that matter. CACG (with their grading set) probably has the “strictest” adherence to their standards today, but that can and likely will change in the future.
A perfect example of this is color bumps. Try to find in that book where it says coins with extraordinary toning are awarded .5- 1.5 whole bumps for eye appeal. You won't, because toning wasn't popular quite yet, but nevertheless the practice is applied regularly by every grading service, including CAC/CACG. Standards can and will change depending on what the market prefers, hence the nomenclature term "market grading". The written standards you worship have been abandoned long ago, and ironically, the person who grades the closest to what's written in that book is..... JA.
I'm hoping we can finally turn you in this thread, you make otherwise valuable contributions to other topics but for some reason you won't take off the blinders with this one. I've said a long time ago, there are no tablets with standards etched in stone. I know current and former PCGS graders, and have spoken with them about these things at length. Its not conjecture, go find Steve Feltner, or JD (That books author), you can find either of them at ANA or FUN and ask when the last time either of them have had to refer to the "written standards" when making a judgement call.
Pure and simple: Academic vs. Practical are often not in alignment. Failing to recognize the practical over the academic is many a man's folly. Per ANA standards book itself, paraphrased: grading is an art not a science, grading is a matter of opinion, those opinions change, and interpretations change.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
I don't think any of those rules are enforced nearly enough to call them "hard and fast", and I think I could find an example of each, to the contrary, in about 5 minutes total in the HA archives. 1921 Peace is the first coin that comes to mind, but im tired and don't want to go down the rabbit hole tonight. Another time....
Perhaps I used the wrong term there. Clearly there are other considerations and compensating factors and exceptions for every rule. And then there are of course the variation, mistakes, and oversight/error beyond that so I know you can find the examples you speak of easily. But I think to provide and publish standards like this is a big step forward and progress vs the companies that don't and leave you guessing why your coin didn't grade higher.
ANACS published standards ages ago, so I haven’t seen any big steps forward. And when it comes to grades 60 and higher, due to their language not being specific enough to address the countless variables involved, written descriptions don’t typically allow readers to distinguish between contiguous grades.
I wouldn’t have used the word “worthless” but as @PeakRarities wrote:
“We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In PCCGS Coin Facts under resources, I find PCGS Photograde to be quite useful for those who are new to coin collecting.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@lonemountaincoin said:
Pure and simple: Academic vs. Practical are often not in alignment. Failing to recognize the practical over the academic is many a man's folly. Per ANA standards book itself, paraphrased: grading is an art not a science, grading is a matter of opinion, those opinions change, and interpretations change.
Nice post but, more to the point, I'm happy to see you here. Keep coming back and posting!
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
See my comment above.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I'm under the impression that PCGS/CAC and NGC/CAC coins carry the same weight to JA. However some mistakenly value PCGS coins higher for no obvious reason to me. It's insane to me that that some would think a loose fitting coin upside down in a rattler holder could be any more desirable than one in a fresh holder. I use reholdering services often but do like an older NGC holder just not a fatty.
CAC is a modifier not an absolute equalizer. The market strongly prefers PCGS + CAC (as do I) and therefore are willing to pay a premium for those coins. They are paying for the PCGS Slab and the CAC sticker - that's two opinions they respect rolled into a slab they like. An NGC + CAC stickered coin is not guaranteed to cross to PCGS. Apart from that, people also pay premiums for rarity which comes in all shapes and sizes - some people collect coins, some people collect stickers, some people collect holders, and some people collect a combination of the above.
My personal favorite is the PCGS OGH well above a rattler and the market also tends to pay a premium on those.
Speaking of rattlers, pretty much any coin in a 1080 holder will go for stupid money, it's all about the rarity and plastic at that point. Same goes for an original NGC Black holder. NGC white labels are also quite desirable, etc.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
Yeah, and they don’t find out by reading a book. Nor do graders themselves.
And no, they don’t actually “know”. They all have opinions about what the “standards” are. Many collectors will have opinions that fall along similar lines, but many will not. As you can see in this very thread, it was put forward that an AU58 cannot be weakly struck - the opinion of a grader 25+ years ago and an opinion that every grader currently employed at PCGS or NGC would likely disagree with.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
Yeah, and they don’t find out by reading a book. Nor do graders themselves.
Not completely, but i think everyone started with one. And I'd be willing to bet the TPGs have written standards. Incisor the words alone are not enough, but you are sounding (to me) as far more of a standard nihilist than seems merited.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
Yeah, and they don’t find out by reading a book. Nor do graders themselves.
Not completely, but i think everyone started with one. And I'd be willing to bet the TPGs have written standards. Incisor the words alone are not enough, but you are sounding (to me) as far more of a standard nihilist than seems merited.
Edited to add: But I know you're responding to someone who more doctrinaire about standards than is merited.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
Yeah, and they don’t find out by reading a book. Nor do graders themselves.
Not completely, but i think everyone started with one. And I'd be willing to bet the TPGs have written standards. Incisor the words alone are not enough, but you are sounding (to me) as far more of a standard nihilist than seems merited.
Just a realist. Sure, a book may be helpful for a beginner to the concept of grading, but beyond that they are misleading at worst and very incomplete at best.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
As for the book you didn't read, that was a joke.
Did you mean that all experienced collectors know what the written standards are, what the actually- practiced standards are or both? Whatever you meant, certainly not “all experienced collectors” (or, for that matter, dealers) know what “they” are.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
As for the book you didn't read, that was a joke.
Did you mean that all experienced collectors know what the written standards are, what the actually- practiced standards are or both? Whatever you meant, certainly not “all experienced collectors” (or, for that matter, dealers) know what “they” are.
Then they aren't very experienced...
Inexactness or variations aside, the grading standards are not so mysterious as people are suggesting. Even in this mixed experience forum, GTG tends to cluster within a couple points of each other and usually includes the correct grade. There are always, of course, outliers.
Interesting thread. Just reinforces my contention there really are no standards. Its fluid as some have said. Its an art not a science. Thats true too.
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
As for the book you didn't read, that was a joke.
Did you mean that all experienced collectors know what the written standards are, what the actually- practiced standards are or both? Whatever you meant, certainly not “all experienced collectors” (or, for that matter, dealers) know what “they” are.
Then they aren't very experienced...
Inexactness or variations aside, the grading standards are not sold mysterious as people are suggesting. Even in this mixed experience forum, GTG tends to cluster within a couple points of each other and usually includes the correct grade. There are always, of course, outliers.
In my opinion, inexactness and variations (which you apparently prefer to put aside) occur with enough frequency to nullify your assertion that “all experienced collectors know what they are.” We’re far enough apart in our opinions that I’m not going to waste your time, mine or anyone else’s debating this. So, you’re on your own.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The grading standards themselves are fluid. Grading standards aren’t chiseled into stone at PCGS or any of the TPGs, for that matter. CACG (with their grading set) probably has the “strictest” adherence to their standards today, but that can and likely will change in the future.
A perfect example of this is color bumps. Try to find in that book where it says coins with extraordinary toning are awarded .5- 1.5 whole bumps for eye appeal. You won't, because toning wasn't popular quite yet, but nevertheless the practice is applied regularly by every grading service, including CAC/CACG. Standards can and will change depending on what the market prefers, hence the nomenclature term "market grading". The written standards you worship have been abandoned long ago, and ironically, the person who grades the closest to what's written in that book is..... JA.
I don't know about that. The guide doesn't say if it barely matches the criteria to subtract a grade point...
I'm actually planning to speak to JA tomorrow so I hope to get some thoughts here and I will report to the forum if we are able to connect, otherwise it will probably be next week.
I'm hoping we can finally turn you in this thread, you make otherwise valuable contributions to other topics but for some reason you won't take off the blinders with this one. I've said a long time ago, there are no tablets with standards etched in stone. I know current and former PCGS graders, and have spoken with them about these things at length. Its not conjecture, go find Steve Feltner, or JD (That books author), you can find either of them at ANA or FUN and ask when the last time either of them have had to refer to the "written standards" when making a judgement call.
I think the problem, if there is one, is that I go by the information published in books and on TPG websites and interview in coin publications. That's all I have. And you guys come in here with legends, conjecture, and hearsay and say I'm wrong and that the published materials don't mean what they say, they are garbage, don't mean anything, etc. This is why I have a hard time bridging this gap. I live in Phoenix which I consider to be a "coin desert" so I don't have a lot of opportunities to meet with industry officials. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be difficult.
The grading standards themselves are fluid. Grading standards aren’t chiseled into stone at PCGS or any of the TPGs, for that matter. CACG (with their grading set) probably has the “strictest” adherence to their standards today, but that can and likely will change in the future.
A perfect example of this is color bumps. Try to find in that book where it says coins with extraordinary toning are awarded .5- 1.5 whole bumps for eye appeal. You won't, because toning wasn't popular quite yet, but nevertheless the practice is applied regularly by every grading service, including CAC/CACG. Standards can and will change depending on what the market prefers, hence the nomenclature term "market grading". The written standards you worship have been abandoned long ago, and ironically, the person who grades the closest to what's written in that book is..... JA.
I don't know about that. The guide doesn't say if it barely matches the criteria to subtract a grade point...
I'm actually planning to speak to JA tomorrow so I hope to get some thoughts here and I will report to the forum if we are able to connect, otherwise it will probably be next week.
I'm hoping we can finally turn you in this thread, you make otherwise valuable contributions to other topics but for some reason you won't take off the blinders with this one. I've said a long time ago, there are no tablets with standards etched in stone. I know current and former PCGS graders, and have spoken with them about these things at length. Its not conjecture, go find Steve Feltner, or JD (That books author), you can find either of them at ANA or FUN and ask when the last time either of them have had to refer to the "written standards" when making a judgement call.
I think the problem, if there is one, is that I go by the information published in books and on TPG websites and interview in coin publications. That's all I have. And you guys come in here with legends, conjecture, and hearsay and say I'm wrong and that the published materials don't mean what they say, they are garbage, don't mean anything, etc. This is why I have a hard time bridging this gap. I live in Phoenix which I consider to be a "coin desert" so I don't have a lot of opportunities to meet with industry officials. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be difficult.
I live in Phoenix too. I think the main problem boils down to what I stated earlier: Academic vs. Practical. Happy to say hello at some point, not sure if you frequent any specific shops or shows in the area.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
The grading standards themselves are fluid. Grading standards aren’t chiseled into stone at PCGS or any of the TPGs, for that matter. CACG (with their grading set) probably has the “strictest” adherence to their standards today, but that can and likely will change in the future.
A perfect example of this is color bumps. Try to find in that book where it says coins with extraordinary toning are awarded .5- 1.5 whole bumps for eye appeal. You won't, because toning wasn't popular quite yet, but nevertheless the practice is applied regularly by every grading service, including CAC/CACG. Standards can and will change depending on what the market prefers, hence the nomenclature term "market grading". The written standards you worship have been abandoned long ago, and ironically, the person who grades the closest to what's written in that book is..... JA.
I don't know about that. The guide doesn't say if it barely matches the criteria to subtract a grade point...
I'm actually planning to speak to JA tomorrow so I hope to get some thoughts here and I will report to the forum if we are able to connect, otherwise it will probably be next week.
I'm hoping we can finally turn you in this thread, you make otherwise valuable contributions to other topics but for some reason you won't take off the blinders with this one. I've said a long time ago, there are no tablets with standards etched in stone. I know current and former PCGS graders, and have spoken with them about these things at length. Its not conjecture, go find Steve Feltner, or JD (That books author), you can find either of them at ANA or FUN and ask when the last time either of them have had to refer to the "written standards" when making a judgement call.
I think the problem, if there is one, is that I go by the information published in books and on TPG websites and interview in coin publications. That's all I have. And you guys come in here with legends, conjecture, and hearsay and say I'm wrong and that the published materials don't mean what they say, they are garbage, don't mean anything, etc. This is why I have a hard time bridging this gap. I live in Phoenix which I consider to be a "coin desert" so I don't have a lot of opportunities to meet with industry officials. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be difficult.
I live in Phoenix too. I think the main problem boils down to what I stated earlier: Academic vs. Practical. Happy to say hello at some point, not sure if you frequent any specific shops or shows in the area.
The problem with Academic vs Practical is this: Why then aren't there any books or guides that reflect Practical? Are you suggesting that all of the books and guides out there are all academic? Surely someone could write a book that collectors here would deem to be correct instead of garbage.
I'll be at the Mesa Coin Club show on Saturday late in the morning but I don't make it to any coin shops really as they don't have the coins I collect usually.
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
The Practical should come through handling coins and/or backed by classes such as summer seminar.
I'll be there @ Mesa as well, but early AM. Not sure how long I'll stay.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Comments
If they are frequently changing are they really "standards" ? I dont think so
I buy the coin. None of the grading services are consistent. I prefer the PCGS and CACG slabs over NGC and ANACS
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58. An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal. If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks. These are rules that I don't think most collectors know or remember and what cause people to assert that certain coins are under graded. Of course, strike and luster are still subjective measures also but they can be defined pretty well.
http://ProofCollection.Net
👍
Clearly not a properly constructed, validated exam
Stable was not referring to ownership but to application of standards. While there MAY have been a slight relaxation over 30 years, there has not been a significant deviation as happened with PCI, ANACS and ICG. As a result, those companies feel into the second tier because the range of grades for the same coin during different time frames is significant.
I don't think any of those rules are enforced nearly enough to call them "hard and fast", and I think I could find an example of each, to the contrary, in about 5 minutes total in the HA archives. 1921 Peace is the first coin that comes to mind, but im tired and don't want to go down the rabbit hole tonight. Another time....
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
From what I see, in reality, those so-called hard and fast rules either aren’t rules or aren’t hard and fast ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m going to assume you were comparing prices on slabbed coins at FUN, and not really the coins. This assessment comes from how I perceive you’ve seen the rise of JA being an employee to being an employer. I prefer PCGS and understand the niche JA has carved out for himself and the investors in his company.In summation , I’d say competition is good and there are more eyes on the critics and critiques than on the coins, at this juncture.
I agree with others saying these are not hard and fast rules.
As a rule, MS67 1921 Peace's can come weakly struck.
Coin Photographer.
I see many coins in 65 or higher holders that are not well struck even factoring in normal strike characteristics for a given date and MM
Perhaps I used the wrong term there. Clearly there are other considerations and compensating factors and exceptions for every rule. And then there are of course the variation, mistakes, and oversight/error beyond that so I know you can find the examples you speak of easily. But I think to provide and publish standards like this is a big step forward and progress vs the companies that don't and leave you guessing why your coin didn't grade higher.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I don’t understand why strike is given so little attention by the major grading agencies. Seems to me weak er strikes should preclude grades like 67 or better altogether and lower the grades of 66 and 65 coins. I am talking about dates that normally come strong for these coins
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
Definitely not true.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
http://ProofCollection.Net
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
Bingo.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The PCGS grading guide book I posted about 20 posts back.
Therein lies the challenge is for us to determine if they've deviated from their standards or is it just statistical variation? We get hung up on misgraded coins in this forum, but we have to allow TPGs a margin of error or consistency because it's a subjective process run by humans. No TPG can get it 100% right. When you grade millions of coins there's going to be tens of thousands of errors.
http://ProofCollection.Net
My current focus is CACG & PCGS material but have slabs from all 5 TPG. I simply pick out nice coins however bulk deals, estates I acquire generally one has to take it all. So I just adjust landing vector (factor offer accordingly).
We're aware Cougar, thanks for sharing that....again.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You mean the grading guide written by particular PCGS graders at one particular point in time (28 years ago, no less). No written grading standards matter very much. They are summaries at best and often not reflective of reality.
@ProofCollection respectfully, you’re missing the point.
The grading standards themselves are fluid. Grading standards aren’t chiseled into stone at PCGS or any of the TPGs, for that matter.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I have many different grading guides but would be one of the first to say I found the PCGS book to be of little use. It does have some nice pictures but most of the grading information sounds more like a horoscope than pertinent information. Seriously, Brown and Dunn from decades before has line drawings with arrows pointing to specific wear points along with written descriptions. The PCGS book will have information such as "Details show more wear".
Which source would you prefer? James
A perfect example of this is color bumps. Try to find in that book where it says coins with extraordinary toning are awarded .5- 1.5 whole bumps for eye appeal. You won't, because toning wasn't popular quite yet, but nevertheless the practice is applied regularly by every grading service, including CAC/CACG. Standards can and will change depending on what the market prefers, hence the nomenclature term "market grading". The written standards you worship have been abandoned long ago, and ironically, the person who grades the closest to what's written in that book is..... JA.
I'm hoping we can finally turn you in this thread, you make otherwise valuable contributions to other topics but for some reason you won't take off the blinders with this one. I've said a long time ago, there are no tablets with standards etched in stone. I know current and former PCGS graders, and have spoken with them about these things at length. Its not conjecture, go find Steve Feltner, or JD (That books author), you can find either of them at ANA or FUN and ask when the last time either of them have had to refer to the "written standards" when making a judgement call.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Pure and simple: Academic vs. Practical are often not in alignment. Failing to recognize the practical over the academic is many a man's folly. Per ANA standards book itself, paraphrased: grading is an art not a science, grading is a matter of opinion, those opinions change, and interpretations change.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
Twilight of slabs?
ANACS published standards ages ago, so I haven’t seen any big steps forward. And when it comes to grades 60 and higher, due to their language not being specific enough to address the countless variables involved, written descriptions don’t typically allow readers to distinguish between contiguous grades.
I wouldn’t have used the word “worthless” but as @PeakRarities wrote:
“We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In PCCGS Coin Facts under resources, I find PCGS Photograde to be quite useful for those who are new to coin collecting.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Nice post but, more to the point, I'm happy to see you here. Keep coming back and posting!
See my comment above.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I'm under the impression that PCGS/CAC and NGC/CAC coins carry the same weight to JA. However some mistakenly value PCGS coins higher for no obvious reason to me. It's insane to me that that some would think a loose fitting coin upside down in a rattler holder could be any more desirable than one in a fresh holder. I use reholdering services often but do like an older NGC holder just not a fatty.
CAC is a modifier not an absolute equalizer. The market strongly prefers PCGS + CAC (as do I) and therefore are willing to pay a premium for those coins. They are paying for the PCGS Slab and the CAC sticker - that's two opinions they respect rolled into a slab they like. An NGC + CAC stickered coin is not guaranteed to cross to PCGS. Apart from that, people also pay premiums for rarity which comes in all shapes and sizes - some people collect coins, some people collect stickers, some people collect holders, and some people collect a combination of the above.
My personal favorite is the PCGS OGH well above a rattler and the market also tends to pay a premium on those.
Speaking of rattlers, pretty much any coin in a 1080 holder will go for stupid money, it's all about the rarity and plastic at that point. Same goes for an original NGC Black holder. NGC white labels are also quite desirable, etc.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
As for the book you didn't read, that was a joke.
Yeah, and they don’t find out by reading a book. Nor do graders themselves.
And no, they don’t actually “know”. They all have opinions about what the “standards” are. Many collectors will have opinions that fall along similar lines, but many will not. As you can see in this very thread, it was put forward that an AU58 cannot be weakly struck - the opinion of a grader 25+ years ago and an opinion that every grader currently employed at PCGS or NGC would likely disagree with.
Not completely, but i think everyone started with one. And I'd be willing to bet the TPGs have written standards. Incisor the words alone are not enough, but you are sounding (to me) as far more of a standard nihilist than seems merited.
Edited to add: But I know you're responding to someone who more doctrinaire about standards than is merited.
Just a realist. Sure, a book may be helpful for a beginner to the concept of grading, but beyond that they are misleading at worst and very incomplete at best.
Did you mean that all experienced collectors know what the written standards are, what the actually- practiced standards are or both? Whatever you meant, certainly not “all experienced collectors” (or, for that matter, dealers) know what “they” are.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which seems strange since CAC is using the same standards for grading regardless of TPG service, correct?
That doesn’t mean that PCGS is necessarily using the same standards as NGC and/or CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Then they aren't very experienced...
Inexactness or variations aside, the grading standards are not so mysterious as people are suggesting. Even in this mixed experience forum, GTG tends to cluster within a couple points of each other and usually includes the correct grade. There are always, of course, outliers.
It's a little strange, but there is a range. The difference between 64 and 65 is not 1, it's 0.1 or less. [Keep in mind that CAC ignores + grades. ]
Interesting thread. Just reinforces my contention there really are no standards. Its fluid as some have said. Its an art not a science. Thats true too.
In my opinion, inexactness and variations (which you apparently prefer to put aside) occur with enough frequency to nullify your assertion that “all experienced collectors know what they are.” We’re far enough apart in our opinions that I’m not going to waste your time, mine or anyone else’s debating this. So, you’re on your own.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't know about that. The guide doesn't say if it barely matches the criteria to subtract a grade point...
I'm actually planning to speak to JA tomorrow so I hope to get some thoughts here and I will report to the forum if we are able to connect, otherwise it will probably be next week.
I think the problem, if there is one, is that I go by the information published in books and on TPG websites and interview in coin publications. That's all I have. And you guys come in here with legends, conjecture, and hearsay and say I'm wrong and that the published materials don't mean what they say, they are garbage, don't mean anything, etc. This is why I have a hard time bridging this gap. I live in Phoenix which I consider to be a "coin desert" so I don't have a lot of opportunities to meet with industry officials. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be difficult.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I live in Phoenix too. I think the main problem boils down to what I stated earlier: Academic vs. Practical. Happy to say hello at some point, not sure if you frequent any specific shops or shows in the area.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
The problem with Academic vs Practical is this: Why then aren't there any books or guides that reflect Practical? Are you suggesting that all of the books and guides out there are all academic? Surely someone could write a book that collectors here would deem to be correct instead of garbage.
I'll be at the Mesa Coin Club show on Saturday late in the morning but I don't make it to any coin shops really as they don't have the coins I collect usually.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
The Practical should come through handling coins and/or backed by classes such as summer seminar.
I'll be there @ Mesa as well, but early AM. Not sure how long I'll stay.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group