You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
But... but... but...
Lol.
This is the most shocked I've been since the Challenger exploded.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
I’m pretty sure, as well, that no one in the discussion said there was an industry standard. And I agree that it’s irrelevant to the debate.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
why is everyone debated i just wanted to know the differences
why is everyone debated i just wanted to know the differences
The differences are minor currently, PCGS loves color and luster and will forgive surface imperfections in leu thereof. NGC just does not weigh those two factors as strongly as PCGS does. Over time both companies have weighted the grading attributes differently than they do now, so coins graded 20+ years ago sometimes grade differently today.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
why is everyone debated i just wanted to know the differences
Welcome to the forum! Perfect illustration of how some members love to debate ad nauseam!
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
I don't expect a response as you've stated that you're done and I understand but I will try one more time.
Looser and tighter are terms that describe tolerances. The way tolerances work is that you can be over the specification or under the specification. Looser means you are further from the target spec, tighter means you are closer to the target spec. If I have a cheap 3D printer that's accurate to +/-0.01" and an expensive one that's accurate to +/-0.001", the expensive machine is tighter. But the parts aren't always going to come out larger than the design, they may come out smaller because a tolerance is a PLUS and MINUS. In both cases, you have to define the specification to be able to determine the deviation from the specification.
You guys keep saying that "looser" TPGs only issue grades that are higher than they should be. "Loose" does not just work in "over" direction, it also applies in the "under" direction.
So if you give 100 coins to TPG A & B to grade and A give predominantly MS65 and B assigns MS66 predominantly, TPG B is not automatically "looser" because they assigned a higher number. To determine which company is is "tighter" you have to first define what an MS65 and MS66 is (using the ANA or some other standard). Then, and only then, can you render a judgement about which company was tighter or stricter to the chosen standard.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
Lmfao
I'm taller than you. So is the standard for tall?
Using a comparative that only goes one direction is different than a comparative that can go both directions. In length/height, clearly one measurement is greater than another. Looser and stricter refer to a tolerance that can go both ways because the measurement can be higher or lower. There is overgrading and undergrading. Both are an issue. I believe you are arguing that undergrading is being a stricter adherence to a standard when it is not. It is just as problematic to undergrade as it is to overgrade.
When you think everyone else is wrong, you might examine why you are swimming upstream
No, I realize that I struggle to convey myself clearly. You'll come around.
So Sheldon 45 is NOT greater than Sheldon 40. Got it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well yes, a grade of 45 is better than a grade of 40 but if you're assigning a 40 to a coin that is a 45 that is grading loosely to the standard. Grading tightly would give a 45 to a 45.
Let's say I have a ruler and it is exactly 15 inches long. Let's say you have a ruler and it is 10 inches long. We them both measure the SAME board and I say 4 feet and you say 6 feet. We can directly compare those measurements even if we both think our rulers are 12 inches. There is no need to compare the rulers to a standard foot. Everyone knows your ruler is shorter than mine just from the 2 measurements. We even know quantitatively how much shorter, even though we don't know which one is now accurate.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
I’m having a hard time fathoming that you could make some of your above statements.
If you take a thousand coins, have two different companies grade all of them and one company grades 900 of the coins a point or more higher, 50 of them the same and the other 50 a point or more lower, one company clearly graded more loosely (or if you prefer, liberally) than the other.
The conclusion we could draw is that one company's standards are different than the other. Which one has a "tighter" tolerance? We have to define that - it depends what standard you use. If you use Company A's standards then Company A is tighter to Company A's standard. Same with B. Comparing A to B is meaningless. Now if you compare A & B to the ANA standard you can actually render a judgement which company has the lowest tolerances to the ANA standard. If the company with greater quantity of lower grades has undergraded the majority of their coins per the ANA standard, then they are grading looser to the ANA standard than the other company even if the numbers are lower.
And that has nothing to do with which company is more accurate, what my personal standards are or what anyone else’s standards are.
Yes, as you wrote “looser is a relative term”. But no, you don’t “have to define the standard”. When comparing how two companies grade the same coins, the one which grades them higher is grading more loosely/liberally than/relative to the other.
Now you are conflating "loose" and "liberal" which may be the root of this misunderstanding. Liberal in this case would mean assigning extra or higher grading points than deserved or warranted. While again "loose" refers to a tolerance and is a measurement of how close an assigned grade is to where it should be (higher or lower). When you are discussing a tolerance you have to have an objective definition of "where it should be" in order to evaluate the adherence to (or deviation from) the standard.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to or deviation from a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
I’m having a hard time fathoming that you could make some of your above statements.
This argument is a fool's errand and once was enough for me.
And I do recall that in the end I was proven right.
That is not the conclusion at all. The conclusion is that I gave up because of a neverending series of misguided and pedantic posts just like this one. I could only bang my head against the wall for so long. Or maybe not, because here I am again.
You were just as wrong there as you are here. The difference is, I'm getting out of this one after two posts and not even trying. It's pointless and a lost cause.
Then you missed the part where the CACG grader affirmed my position.
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I don't know if it's that, but it is quite a paradigm shift to understand what it really means for each company to have their own standard so when you want to compare TPG standards you have to define a "gold standard" to compare them to.
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, all you can say is that PCGS assigned higher numbers. Before you can make this loose/tight assessment you have to evaluate those 1000 coins against a chosen "gold" standard to determine what the grades should have been.
Edited to add:
If you were to conduct a scientific experiment to test the 4 largest TPGs, you would first assemble a group of coins and perhaps using a grading board of 10 renown experts who would establish a "gold standard" for what the grades should be. Then you would have each company grade the coins, and then you would do a statistical analysis of how close the grades were. You would not just quantify the amount of overgrading, you would also assess when the assigned grade was lower than it should have been. Both over and under grades would contribute to the "tight/loose" score.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
I’m pretty sure, as well, that no one in the discussion said there was an industry standard. And I agree that it’s irrelevant to the debate.
But if you are going to compare TPGs, you have to define some standard by which to compare them to. So I wouldn't call it irrelevant but rather essential.
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
I don't expect a response as you've stated that you're done and I understand but I will try one more time.
Looser and tighter are terms that describe tolerances. The way tolerances work is that you can be over the specification or under the specification. Looser means you are further from the target spec, tighter means you are closer to the target spec. If I have a cheap 3D printer that's accurate to +/-0.01" and an expensive one that's accurate to +/-0.001", the expensive machine is tighter. But the parts aren't always going to come out larger than the design, they may come out smaller because a tolerance is a PLUS and MINUS. In both cases, you have to define the specification to be able to determine the deviation from the specification.
You guys keep saying that "looser" TPGs only issue grades that are higher than they should be. "Loose" does not just work in "over" direction, it also applies in the "under" direction.
So if you give 100 coins to TPG A & B to grade and A give predominantly MS65 and B assigns MS66 predominantly, TPG B is not automatically "looser" because they assigned a higher number. To determine which company is is "tighter" you have to first define what an MS65 and MS66 is (using the ANA or some other standard). Then, and only then, can you render a judgement about which company was tighter or stricter to the chosen standard.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
Lmfao
I'm taller than you. So is the standard for tall?
Using a comparative that only goes one direction is different than a comparative that can go both directions. In length/height, clearly one measurement is greater than another. Looser and stricter refer to a tolerance that can go both ways because the measurement can be higher or lower. There is overgrading and undergrading. Both are an issue. I believe you are arguing that undergrading is being a stricter adherence to a standard when it is not. It is just as problematic to undergrade as it is to overgrade.
When you think everyone else is wrong, you might examine why you are swimming upstream
No, I realize that I struggle to convey myself clearly. You'll come around.
So Sheldon 45 is NOT greater than Sheldon 40. Got it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well yes, a grade of 45 is better than a grade of 40 but if you're assigning a 40 to a coin that is a 45 that is grading loosely to the standard. Grading tightly would give a 45 to a 45.
Let's say I have a ruler and it is exactly 15 inches long. Let's say you have a ruler and it is 10 inches long. We them both measure the SAME board and I say 4 feet and you say 6 feet. We can directly compare those measurements even if we both think our rulers are 12 inches. There is no need to compare the rulers to a standard foot. Everyone knows your ruler is shorter than mine just from the 2 measurements. We even know quantitatively how much shorter, even though we don't know which one is now accurate.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
I’m having a hard time fathoming that you could make some of your above statements.
If you take a thousand coins, have two different companies grade all of them and one company grades 900 of the coins a point or more higher, 50 of them the same and the other 50 a point or more lower, one company clearly graded more loosely (or if you prefer, liberally) than the other.
The conclusion we could draw is that one company's standards are different than the other. Which one has a "tighter" tolerance? We have to define that - it depends what standard you use. If you use Company A's standards then Company A is tighter to Company A's standard. Same with B. Comparing A to B is meaningless. Now if you compare A & B to the ANA standard you can actually render a judgement which company has the lowest tolerances to the ANA standard. If the company with greater quantity of lower grades has undergraded the majority of their coins per the ANA standard, then they are grading looser to the ANA standard than the other company even if the numbers are lower.
And that has nothing to do with which company is more accurate, what my personal standards are or what anyone else’s standards are.
Yes, as you wrote “looser is a relative term”. But no, you don’t “have to define the standard”. When comparing how two companies grade the same coins, the one which grades them higher is grading more loosely/liberally than/relative to the other.
Now you are conflating "loose" and "liberal" which may be the root of this misunderstanding. Liberal in this case would mean assigning extra or higher grading points than deserved or warranted. While again "loose" refers to a tolerance and is a measurement of how close an assigned grade is to where it should be (higher or lower). When you are discussing a tolerance you have to have an objective definition of "where it should be" in order to evaluate the adherence to (or deviation from) the standard.
@ProofCollection said:
Pretty much everyone here has it wrong.
Every company has their own standard thus making statements like one company being looser or more conservative meaningless. That is because these statements are never made with respect to a different grading standard such as ANA. Which, you could compare which company is closer to ANA standards, but that's generally not what the expressed opinions are saying. I think what some commenters end up meaning to say is that some companies tend to give out lower numbers than other companies, but then to translate that to one being better or more desirable is opinion based on a preference than adherence to or deviation from a particular standard.
After looking at 1000's of coins you will learn how to translate one company's grades to another company and what conditions one company will tolerate and another company will reject.
There's a logical fallacy floating through there. I don't need a 3rd set of standards to know who is looser. I need only compare Company A to Company B. If Company A calls it XF details and Company B calls it XF, Company B is looser than Company A. If A calls it XF40 and B calls it XF45, B is looser. This is true regardless of what the ANA would call it.
I'm taller than you, even if there is no official standard of "tall". You're confusing the comparative with an absolute. Both A and B might both be "tight" relative to ANA, but that doesn't mean B isn't "looser" than A.
No, there is no fallacy.
I agree that when it comes to one company designating details and another not, that is a clear example of looser vs tighter standards.
You are on the right track but where you go wrong is that to be comparative you have to define a standard to compare to, such as the ANA standard. It's like asking which car is faster, a Dodge Demon 170 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS? It depends on what standard you define. Are you talking 1/4 mile or a race course? You have to define what you are measuring to. In coin grading, handing out lower numbers does not make one company tighter than another.
So when it comes to one company (A) issuing a 40 and another (B) a 45, all you can say is that one company issued a lower number. That doesn't make the XF40 grade tighter. For example, if the grading scale had all 70 grades and the coin per the ANA standard was an XF44, then the company calling it an XF45 is tighter. If all you compare is A vs B then all you know is that one was 40 and the other was 45. When you compare A & B to the ANA standard, now you can actually say which one was closest to the ANA standard. You have to say what True North is.
No, you do not need a 3rd standard to compare to. That is your logical fallacy. If A says 30 and B says 50, A is looser than B. Period. That is true even if the ANA says 25 or the ANA says 55. "Looser" is a comparison not an absolute. A is looser than B without any need to have a standard C. Period. I can't state it any more clearly.
This is your fallacy. Looser is a relative term. You have to define the standard.
Otherwise you're just announcing that the lower number
Your car example is just creating a different confusion. A and B are not two different races, they are BOTH the same race (scale). It is quite simple to say that the demon is faster on 1/4 mile than the Porshe. You don't need a standard 1/4 mile car to compare to. NGC and PCGS are not running two different races. Their numbers directly compare, regardless of whether the ANA exists or not and no matter where they stand relative to the ANA.
This is where you fallacy is. PCGS and NGC and all of the numbers do NOT directly compare. Each company has their own standard. PCGS has their standard for what a MS65 is and so does NGC. They are not the same. One is not better than the other although one may align with your standard better than the other but that's a personal subjective assessment. If you are to say that one is looser than the other then you are comparing to YOUR standard of what you think it should be rather than an objective standard like ANA.
Part of the problem is that you're thinking of the term "looser" like two pair of pants, one of which has more room around the waist. The "least loose" pants are the ones with no extra room and the loosest pants are the ones that almost fall off. The thing is in grading, the grade can by looser and be either higher than it should be or lower than it should be, so you can't just say that the lowest number is the tightest.
I’m having a hard time fathoming that you could make some of your above statements.
This argument is a fool's errand and once was enough for me.
And I do recall that in the end I was proven right.
That is not the conclusion at all. The conclusion is that I gave up because of a neverending series of misguided and pedantic posts just like this one. I could only bang my head against the wall for so long. Or maybe not, because here I am again.
You were just as wrong there as you are here. The difference is, I'm getting out of this one after two posts and not even trying. It's pointless and a lost cause.
Then you missed the part where the CACG grader affirmed my position.
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I don't know if it's that, but it is quite a paradigm shift to understand what it really means for each company to have their own standard so when you want to compare TPG standards you have to define a "gold standard" to compare them to.
You are correct, the problem you have is the people who are arguing with you have already made up their mind that PCGS is the standard and thus no actual standard is needed. From that point of view then everything else can be called loose or tight as needed to fit the narrative.
Most people know that there is 5280 feet in a mile. But if you don't know that you can say you ran a mile after only 5279 feet because you don't know the standard which allows you to make any number the standard. This is very prevalent in today's society, if I say something enough times it becomes fact even if it is not. These people have it ingrained into their brain that PCGS is always right, that it is the standard; you just cannot defeat years of indoctrination with facts.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, all you can say is that PCGS assigned higher numbers. Before you can make this loose/tight assessment you have to evaluate those 1000 coins against a chosen "gold" standard to determine what the grades should have been.
Edited to add:
If you were to conduct a scientific experiment to test the 4 largest TPGs, you would first assemble a group of coins and perhaps using a grading board of 10 renown experts who would establish a "gold standard" for what the grades should be. Then you would have each company grade the coins, and then you would do a statistical analysis of how close the grades were. You would not just quantify the amount of overgrading, you would also assess when the assigned grade was lower than it should have been. Both over and under grades would contribute to the "tight/loose" score.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I won’t speak for others who have been debating this issue. However, in my replies, I’ve made it clear that no-one’s opinions or perceived “standards” have any bearing on their views regarding one company’s grading the identical coins more strictly or loosely than another company does.
If you submitted 1000 different type and grades of the identical coins to PCGS and.NGC, if PCGS graded 70% of them higher, 20% the same and 10% lower, wouldn’t it be fair to say that based on your submissions, it appeared that PCGS was looser in its grading than NGC was?
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
I’m pretty sure, as well, that no one in the discussion said there was an industry standard. And I agree that it’s irrelevant to the debate.
But if you are going to compare TPGs, you have to define some standard by which to compare them to. So I wouldn't call it irrelevant but rather essential.
Yes, looser COULD mean tolerances. It also could mean you have low moral values. It could mean you weren't tightened all the way. It could and does mean in coin circles that you are not grading as strictly: 45 instead of 40. To refuse to acknowledge that is how 98% of coin folk use the term is either sheer hubris or pedantic stubbornness.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@124Spider said:
It's amazing how people attack a "debate" like this with religious fervor.
I have never seen any evidence that, over a large enough sample size, there is any significant difference between NGC and PCGS in how they grade.
But I do think that the PCGS slab is more attractive than the NGC slab.
I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that there is a consistent difference.
I will argue that there is. There are several modern coins that I am trying to upgrade mostly from MS66 to MS67. In many cases the PCGS 67s are scarce or pricey and more common and cheaper in NGC slabs hence my active search. If you want to compare NGC MS67s to PCGS MS67s the difference is pretty clear. The NGC coins that will cross to PCGS are rare. In fact I have had several instances where the NGC 68 crossed to PCGS 66. There is undoubtedly a clear difference in standards.
BTW, I currently have the #1 PCGS Registry set for 1999-Present Mint Set with Major Varieties FWIW.
Further, here is the published success rate for crossovers. Note that I believe this includes CACG and ANACS but we're also looking at selection bias as most of these coins are probably going to be on the upper end of the spectrum as the submitters expected them to cross, but 60% of them are disappointed. The success rate would not be this low if they were not significantly different.
Edited to add:
As further evidence of this, there are many, many modern coins where there are significant price differences between PCGS and NGC of the same grade. If it was "that easy" and "that profitable" there would be a burgeoning industry of coin sharks taking advantage of the arbitrage and reholdering coins. But this doesn't exist..
I price them (sell code on holder) equally (CDN CPG) plus I put the cost code on the holder as well. Another factor is I may want more for PQ / A vs average quality B or low end C coins.
Comments
But... but... but...
Lol.
This is the most shocked I've been since the Challenger exploded.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No, I would say results like that are considerably inconsistent between the two companies due to very different grading criteria. One of the key issues to this entire discussion is the lack of a true industry "standard". So anytime I use the term standard I am talking about the grading criteria employed at each grading company. These criteria are on the surface are more alike than different but the subjective aspects of grading from each company are where the differences lie. The terms tight or loose have never really been correctly used in this context. If you compare the grading of PCGS from its inception to today, today's grading at PCGS could be called loose as it is not uncommon to see coins from the rattler, ogh, and even the solid blue label timeframes upgrade by a + or more. But one TPG is not tighter or looser when compared to another TPG unless you consider one of those TPGs as the industry standard for grading.
This is why some, many here use those terms as they do. They have been told and told that PCGS is the standard, PCGS even calls itself the standard for the rare coin industry. It is there in bold letters at the top of the PCGS home page for all to see. So, if you believe that PCGS is the industry standard then naturally you would use the terms loose or tight when describing/comparing every other TPG to PCGS. I do not consider PCGS as being the industry standard for grading. As such tight or loose do not apply for me when discussing the grading differences between PCGS and any other TPG. I think it would be far more constructive and useful to discuss why there are differences in grading vs the use of these very subjective, often dismissive, and demeaning terms when discussing different TPGs and grading. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It sounds like neither of us considers that there’s a true “industry standard for grading”. And since you, therefore, believe that the words “tighter” and “looser” don’t apply, I’ll remove them from the equation. So due to (as you phrased it) “very different grading criteria” between the two companies, instead, the result is that one has a tendency to grade identical coins higher and the other, lower.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm pretty sure no one said there was an industry standard. It's also irrelevant to the argument. But good luck, Mark. We're leaving the field to you.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I’m pretty sure, as well, that no one in the discussion said there was an industry standard. And I agree that it’s irrelevant to the debate.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
why is everyone debated i just wanted to know the differences
One has white prongs, and is located in Florida. One has clear prongs, and is located in California. The coin is the same whether wrapped in either.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
The differences are minor currently, PCGS loves color and luster and will forgive surface imperfections in leu thereof. NGC just does not weigh those two factors as strongly as PCGS does. Over time both companies have weighted the grading attributes differently than they do now, so coins graded 20+ years ago sometimes grade differently today.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
we got memes on a thread now
We have memes on every thread
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
aura...
Welcome to the forum! Perfect illustration of how some members love to debate ad nauseam!
I don't expect a response as you've stated that you're done and I understand but I will try one more time.
Looser and tighter are terms that describe tolerances. The way tolerances work is that you can be over the specification or under the specification. Looser means you are further from the target spec, tighter means you are closer to the target spec. If I have a cheap 3D printer that's accurate to +/-0.01" and an expensive one that's accurate to +/-0.001", the expensive machine is tighter. But the parts aren't always going to come out larger than the design, they may come out smaller because a tolerance is a PLUS and MINUS. In both cases, you have to define the specification to be able to determine the deviation from the specification.
You guys keep saying that "looser" TPGs only issue grades that are higher than they should be. "Loose" does not just work in "over" direction, it also applies in the "under" direction.
So if you give 100 coins to TPG A & B to grade and A give predominantly MS65 and B assigns MS66 predominantly, TPG B is not automatically "looser" because they assigned a higher number. To determine which company is is "tighter" you have to first define what an MS65 and MS66 is (using the ANA or some other standard). Then, and only then, can you render a judgement about which company was tighter or stricter to the chosen standard.
Then you missed the part where the CACG grader affirmed my position.
I don't know if it's that, but it is quite a paradigm shift to understand what it really means for each company to have their own standard so when you want to compare TPG standards you have to define a "gold standard" to compare them to.
No, all you can say is that PCGS assigned higher numbers. Before you can make this loose/tight assessment you have to evaluate those 1000 coins against a chosen "gold" standard to determine what the grades should have been.
Edited to add:
If you were to conduct a scientific experiment to test the 4 largest TPGs, you would first assemble a group of coins and perhaps using a grading board of 10 renown experts who would establish a "gold standard" for what the grades should be. Then you would have each company grade the coins, and then you would do a statistical analysis of how close the grades were. You would not just quantify the amount of overgrading, you would also assess when the assigned grade was lower than it should have been. Both over and under grades would contribute to the "tight/loose" score.
Now that I can agree with.
But if you are going to compare TPGs, you have to define some standard by which to compare them to. So I wouldn't call it irrelevant but rather essential.
Yes, looser COULD mean tolerances. It also could mean you have low moral values. It could mean you weren't tightened all the way. It could and does mean in coin circles that you are not grading as strictly: 45 instead of 40. To refuse to acknowledge that is how 98% of coin folk use the term is either sheer hubris or pedantic stubbornness.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Silly argument.
There are 2 Big dogs. And the big Dogs don't really care who's 1 and 2.
They're making bank so the point is moot.
It's amazing how people attack a "debate" like this with religious fervor.
I have never seen any evidence that, over a large enough sample size, there is any significant difference between NGC and PCGS in how they grade.
But I do think that the PCGS slab is more attractive than the NGC slab.
I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that there is a consistent difference.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
For seated quarters F-AU there is a consistent 1-2 tier difference. NGC XF40 is a PCGS 30 etc.
I value them equally. Period. End of story.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I will argue that there is. There are several modern coins that I am trying to upgrade mostly from MS66 to MS67. In many cases the PCGS 67s are scarce or pricey and more common and cheaper in NGC slabs hence my active search. If you want to compare NGC MS67s to PCGS MS67s the difference is pretty clear. The NGC coins that will cross to PCGS are rare. In fact I have had several instances where the NGC 68 crossed to PCGS 66. There is undoubtedly a clear difference in standards.
BTW, I currently have the #1 PCGS Registry set for 1999-Present Mint Set with Major Varieties FWIW.
Further, here is the published success rate for crossovers. Note that I believe this includes CACG and ANACS but we're also looking at selection bias as most of these coins are probably going to be on the upper end of the spectrum as the submitters expected them to cross, but 60% of them are disappointed. The success rate would not be this low if they were not significantly different.
Edited to add:
As further evidence of this, there are many, many modern coins where there are significant price differences between PCGS and NGC of the same grade. If it was "that easy" and "that profitable" there would be a burgeoning industry of coin sharks taking advantage of the arbitrage and reholdering coins. But this doesn't exist..
I price them (sell code on holder) equally (CDN CPG) plus I put the cost code on the holder as well. Another factor is I may want more for PQ / A vs average quality B or low end C coins.