Grading standards tighter since '98?

RGL

I know the popular view is that the old green slabs (pre-Nov. 1998, says Conder) were more strictly graded and might grade higher if resubmitted today. And, indeed, I have won a few bumps on green slabs. But, today I received an old green slab PR-68 DCAM 1962 Jefferson I purchased recently for a good price and it is a slightly inferior coin to the blue insert slab PR-67 DCAM 1962 I already had. Tighter grading then or now? What is your experience?

dbldie55

PCGS has never changed their grading standards despite what the coins look like. At least that is the story they will always tell.

Elcontador

While it is true that some bright white high end coins in old slabs have been cracked out, resubmitted & upgraded, you can't make a generalization re any old holders.

Some of the ugliest coins for the grade I've ever seen are technically graded MS 65 silver type coins in first generation holders. It runs the gamut from Capped Bust Dimes to Seated & Trade $s.

michael

maybe maybe not yes no it all depends now i can say 100% certain show me a slabbed coin in my respective speciality and i will tell you whether it is solid for the grade overgraded or undergraded and if the eye appeal is mnoster or somewhere inbetween

but as always

buy the coin not the holder*****************8

sincerely michael

fletch2645

I have recently been getting some Morgan's graded for a registry set and I came across a PCGS "first generation" (rattler) holder (pre-green label) that was graded MS65. I can't remember where I picked up this coin, but I compared it to a current "blue label" MS65 of the same date and it looked to be at least 2 points lower than the current slab. Since this coin was rattling around in the holder and it was scratched up pretty bad, I sent it in for reholdering. When it came back, I again compared it to the other coin and came to the same conclusion--this coin had been grossly overgraded. I don't know the time era this coin was originally graded in, but at least in this case, it appears that grading standards were much looser then than now.

Elcontador

Most of the coins remaining in 1st generation holders are technically graded ugly coins, or toned coins which by today's standards are not looked upon favorably. A few of them have sat in collections for many years. The others have already been upgraded.

clackamas

I recently sent for regarde a very early graded Buff Nickel that stayed the same grade and a green label lincoln that got a 1 pt. bump. Buff Old 64 to New 64. Lincoln Old -63RB - New 64RB. I would say how ever that PCGS is much tougher today than they were 6 months ago. Coin that were 66RDs in Jan/Feb are now comming back 65RD. Go figure.

keets

the conclusions stated by baseball make a lot of sense and are much the same ones i've arrived at logically. it seems to be a selling point with the old holders from any time period that the standards were stricter and that the coins are undergraded. seems to me that the coins still in older holders are probably there because they are at their highest obtainable grade, whether it's correct or not. as always there are exceptions. logic tells me that when collectors as a whole have more confidence in PCGS---that we feel they are grading more consistently and more correctly---the next wave of resubmissions will start with the first type of blue label holders.

the one thing i appreciate about the early holdered coins is that i assume they are "stable" regarding any type of change in tone or any spotting that would occur after slabbing. with the older slabs what you see is generally what you get while more recent coins sometimes change!!

al h.

Gilbert

I would say, it depends on what was acceptable in the market then.

I've always been anti-market grading; to me, when you publish a measurable standard, then you should be able to measure each and every IDENTICAL coin by that standard. A 1881-S Morgan graded MS65 should look the same whether it was graded 15 years ago, or tomorrow, IMO.

Since the PCGS grading guide was published in 1997, and it clearly states that market considerations are made when grading ....

IrishMike

Gilbert I agree with you, but it's difficult in a lot of series to find two identical coins side by side any where. It's my understanding that PCGS, ANACS and NGC have grading sets, but still how do you compare one coin with another when you spend a precious few seconds grading it? Who really sets the standards the market, i.e. the buyers or the grading companies?

FranklinHalfAddict

I was just scanning some REALLY old threads and came across this one.
It’s a quick read and I thought it was fairly interesting.
Sounds like many collectors still have the same view points now as these guys did back in 2002.
Even then they thought that all of the upgradable coins had been cracked from the old green holders.

FranklinHalfAddict

Checking all the participants activity…. @dbldie55 and @Elcontador are still active to this day. Amazing!

may

Wow, this is funny. I was just reading this discussion today at about three in the afternoon. I was out searching for the first thread on the forum. Freaky!

Cougar1978

I think only a dunce would try make generalizations about grading standards for certain time period. The reality is YMMV. Many of the coins gone bad in the holder (pvc, horrible tarnish) others look Gem BU as day they graded.