Is PCGS Too Loose on Modern Proofs?

gmarguli

Should PCGS tighten up on the grading for modern proofs? After all, with so many coins coming out from the mint in pristine condition, shouldn't it take something "extra" to get that coveted PR69 grade? If you look at the population reports, clearly the number of coins graded PR69 is the majority. PR69 has become the average grade. Shouldn't the average grade be lower than that? Shouldn't only super and exceptional coins get the PR69 grade?

Old coins are graded very differently than newer coins. A hairlined proof Seated half might grade PR66, but if that coin were a Walking Liberty half it might grade PR64 or if a Franklin half it might PR63.

Shouldn't a State Quarter need to jump up an dance before getting the PR69 grade? Shouldn't an average modern proof coin grade perhaps PR67 at best. This would allow the PR68 & PR69 grades for exceptional coins as well as keep the prices for these better coins firmer.

Should PCGS start tightening their grading standards for these coins and ask for “more” in order to get it into a high grade slab?

IvanOnly

I disagree, the Mint should be Minting Proof 68-70 Dcam's, that is why there Proofs. Mint sets on the other hand. PCGS sounds like it dislikes grading MS69 and MS70's, they are a little tight on that.

crito

I dunno about average greg, depends which series you're talking about. When I go to gold eagles in the population report, there's not even a column for PR70, none exist in ANY date or denomination. I just got a $10 eagle back as PR69DCAM that's CLEARLY a 70, can't find a flaw with my 8x glass.

gmarguli

crito, PCGS doesn't really give the PR70 grade anymore. How do you feel knowing that your possibly perfect "PR69" is lumped in with all those other PR69s that aren't as good. Wouldn't it be better if the "average PR69" were reduced to a PR67 and your surperb coin were given the PR69 grade? It would set it apart from the average coins.

Clankeye

Well, it seems to me, Greg, then you are asking them to grade like the NGC * system. If you are saying those coins grading 69 need to have that extra "danceability" about them. Isn't that saying eye appeal is the determining factor, and not the technical grade? And personaly I don't know how you start measuring eye-appeal on high-end straight-from-the-mint moderns anyway.

If these coins are making the high grades by their technical merits, then they have to be assigned. I hate the idea of PCGS just arbitrarily tightening things up and creating basically what amounts to a condition rarities market that shouldn't exist.

crito

doesn't look like they ever gave it out with gold eagles. the sad thing is a PCGS PR69 is still worth more than selling it raw and likely more than a NGC PF70. at least I don't have to wonder about bias, since nobody's made one.

gmarguli

Clankeye, PCGS (all the services) grade coins somewhat based on their manufacturing techniques and rarity. A Seated half with a mintage of 200 coins that is 150 years old will be allowed a lot of marks even in a high grade. They won't allow nearly as many marks on a Walking Liberty half which is only 60 years old and has a mintage of 3,000. The minting techniques were better and there are more examples of this coin in the market.

I feel the problem is that PCGS has stopped taking this into account with the newer proof coins. Shouldn't we require just a little more for a coin minted this year than for a coin minted 20 years ago?

Modern coins are minted in the millions and minted with exceptional quality. Shouldn't PCGS take this into account?

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Placid

Changing standards might be costly to pcgs.
If you do have one of those few pr70 coins and used the grade guarantee you might end up with a check and the coin.

gmarguli

Tighten the standards for the current year on forward. All the others have been graded, but they can stop the flood of PR69s onto the market for the future years while still grading the previous years the same.

Clankeye

<< <i>I'm just playing devil's advocate. >>



And I do think you are making some good points, Greg. I'm just trying to imagine what possible standard the new coins would be graded to, and why on earth anyone would bother.

Placid

I know how about adding a decimal for grades 69. 69.1-69.9
Then I could say my coin is 69.3 but pq for the grade.

braddick

Yes. Tighten the Standard. I remember when, with the older GREEN inserts- PCGS rarely gave out the PR69 (they didn't do "CAM or "DCAM" then) grade. There were zero PR70's and most of the PR68 were even tough.

Now, cruize eBay: You may purchase a run-of-the-mill PR69DCAM Kennedy for under $25.00.

Tighten the Standard. Or, maybe that is too late and something PCGS should have considered years ago.

CarlWohlforth

I don't know. It seems to me a PR 69 DCAM proof Jefferson nickel should look like other PR 69 DCAMs. That is my 1964 and my 2002 should both be awesome, similiar deep cameo contrast, no marks visible by eye, super watery mirror like fields you can see across the room in. Just because the mint is making better quality coins than back then shouldn't change anything but price. And that is how it is.