Slab Generations Can Introduce a Grading Bias

TrickleCharge

Overall it's generally accepted that modern grading standards have loosened from what they once were. Let's focus instead on those instances where a recently graded coin is under graded by at least a full grade. Should these coins be looked at differently just because of the holder they reside in?

It was mentioned in another thread that CAC standards for awarding a gold sticker appear to be different depending on the generation of the holder. Coins in newer holders generally need to be solid at least two grades higher and may still need some dialogue or documentation to help the case for a gold sticker. Older holder coins seem to follow the published CAC definition and qualify for a gold sticker if solid at just one grade higher.

CAC's reasoning for this could be to reiterate that grading standards have changed. That point should still be shown though if the same stickering standards are applied to both old and new holders. They could also be trying to dissuade cracking out and trying to downgrade in order to get a gold bean. Whatever the reason, it muddies the water to have two different standards.

As CAC moves away from stickering and more into grading these next few years, their focus will be on the coin and not the holder for raw submissions. That said, holder bias can still exist for crossovers and reconsiderations. Let's hope for consistency when it can be controlled, not just from CAC but all of the TPGS.

oldabeintx

As someone who has collected for about 70 years, I can say with assurance that standards are often looser today. I can’t offer proof, but I trust my eyes.

I’m talking mainly about coins in the 63-67 range and mainly common coins, which we see often enough that they form a pattern and are remembered.

BryceM

“Standard” is the wrong word. Grading conventions & trends exist. There never were any actual standards.

KOYNGUY

Grading always has been and always will be a moving target when grading is done by humans, grading services, and firms subject to outside influences.
My question is if an exacting AI standard can survive everchanging market forces. I, for one, thinks it can not. The tail wags the dog. Any "STANDARD" can be right for a time, But most likely wrong in the long term. ANACS, PCGS, NGC, NCI, CAC, CACCG have all had their day in the sun but will eventually have to adapt to stay relevant or will see a new kid in town
Each AI "STANDARD" will have to be set at the values a programmer gives it. This set of values will go in and out of fashion depending on current market tastes. The big dogs will be fed, and unfortunately they set the market. Joe collector will, and has followed their lead
Think Ai edition 2, 3 and so on. As always, My opinion only J.P. Martin

BStrauss3

I disagree @BryceM, but the ANA Standards were reviled before they were published and proved "unworkable" in the market (too strict, imagine that), so they were buried in favor of today's market grading.

KOYNGUY

Exactly, see my post. I remember when Good condition coins had to have fill rims obv /rev.
Standards change, generally looser. Circ. changes are minor compared to the expansion of the 11 point MS scale from 2 grades. Age provides perspective. J.P. Martin

tonedcoinlover

Is it to the advantage for a TPG company to correctly (IMO) grade the item conservatively in order to secure a resubmission?
We seem to play a "I am smarter that them" approach.
I am probably wrong here but it is my humble opinion after 45 years in the business.

ajaan

@KOYNGUY said:
Exactly, see my post. I remember when Good condition coins had to have fill rims obv /rev.
Standards change, generally looser. Circ. changes are minor compared to the expansion of the 11 point MS scale from 2 grades. Age provides perspective. J.P. Martin

and Fine Barber and Seated coins needed full LIBERTY

winesteven

FYI, there have been several occasions where I have received a plus added on via Reconsideration on a coin that had been recently graded and placed in a new holder with its accompanying “high” cert number.

Steve