Has Grading Standards Changed?????

Coins101

My coin collecting involvement comes and go. It is currently one of my top passions right now. I had always graded coins using the "Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins", copy right 1977. About three years ago, I bought, I bought a copy of Whiman's "Photograde, 18th edition." Just recently, I bought a copy of the "PCGS Official Guide to Coin Collecting and Counterfeit Detection."

It seems the grading has loosened up a little on circulated coins. Is it me or have things changed?

Now, or a big change, look at this coin and grade he is claiming:

1866 With Rays Shield Nickel, Nice VF/XF

paigowjohnny

That's Ernie's auction..he's infamous here on the boards. Overgrading and/or cleaned coins.

Russ

Yes, standards have changed over the years. The grading services deny it, but it's true.

The auction you linked is not a good example to illustrate grading standards. That particular seller overgrades pretty much everything. He does provide large, clear images though. Which is better than most.

Russ, NCNE

Baley

the linked coin is a very nice VG, maybe a Fine+ at best.

for Ernie auctions, just look at the picture and the price, grade the coin yourself and forget his description.

I've bought a couple coins from him and been happy, crystal clear pictures, very fast and professional shipping.

astrorat

I have picked up a few pieces from Ernie and have always been pleased with his service . . . polite, fast, and straigh-forward. In my experience, his coins are optimistically graded by usually 1/2 or 1 full qualitative grade, but occasionally can be picked up for a decent price.

Lane

astrorat

The grading standards are in a CONSTANT state of flux, why? The reason is quite simple but overlooked (or misunderstood) by the vast majority of collectors and dealers. It is because the grading services use MARKET grading. Coins are graded as to the price they would bring in the market, not for their technical grade (which will not change unless there is a MAJOR shift in the hobby). Thus, as the market changes, so will the grading.

Lane

roadrunner

Grading changes as often as the sun goes down. Major market shifts have occurred several times in the past 25 years:

1978-80, 1981-82, 1983-1985, 1986-1987, 1990-1992, 1993-1996, 1997-1999, 2000-2002, 2003-present. Most coincide with prices rising or falling which is pretty much what always happens. Grading today is light years from how things were done in 1977.

roadrunner

Coins101

The ebay link was not an example of the grading standards changing, just a "I can believe this guy is really trying to sell this coin at that grade." But, comparing the three references I mentioned, it appears some of the coins grades have loosen up. This is especially true for the fine or better-circulated grades.

I guess I need to re-educate my self.

Rampage

I, too, have bought from Ernie and have been happy. Reasonable price (actually much cheaper than would normally bring) and good professional service. Of course, the coin I bought was certified so I cannot comment on his grading skills.

paigowjohnny

<< <i>That's Ernie's auction..he's infamous here on the boards. Overgrading and/or cleaned coins. >>



Based on some of the posts above...my apologies to Ernie

braddick

It's not just the Grading Standards, but your own personal standards that are subject to chance as you mature in your abilities.

stman

<< <i>Both PCGS and NGC are aware of gradeflation and are doing their best to keep things consistant. You will NOT see todays MS65 Morgans in MS66 or 67 holders down the road. >>



Sure hope not because imo many of the 65 holders today are yesterdays 63 and 64. But nothing would surprise me.

Signed.... Old Grumpy Collector.

tradedollarnut

Can you give me one (1) example of a high profile coin that is graded now by PCGS or NGC lower than it was graded when it appeared in an auction catalog before 1998?

Here's a few for you:

The Amon Carter 1885 trade dollar was once cataloged as Gem Proof in the 1980's. It was also once cataloged as Choice Proof. It now resides in a PCGS PF62 Cameo holder.

The Eliasberg 1846-O Seated Dollar was cataloged in 1997 as Gem BU, finest known. It now resides in a PCGS MS63 holder.

The Eliasberg 1876-CC Trade Dollar was cataloged as MS66 in the 1997 sale. It resides in a PCGS MS65 holder.

That's off the top of my head. I'm certain if I thought about it for a while I could come up with more - many, many more. But your post ignores the obvious - it's in an auction company's best interest to lowball the grades of their prominent collections in order to be able to tout how much they realized vs the estimate. The coins will bring what they'll bring, but the auction company gets to advertise they brought 200% of presale estimate and aren't we great!

astrorat

<< <i>The standards have finally been confirmed. remember, certification has only been around for 18 years. I don't think its so bad that the first 15 of them were a self examination and cleansing. >>



I gotta disagree with this . . . TPG's use MARKET grading, not technical grading. When you speak of standards stablizing, that is referring to technical grading. Market grading is about PRICING, not about describing the state of preservation. Disagree? Look at all of the 62 holdered coins that a few years ago were 58's . . . the Standing Liberty quarter series is littered with examples. The reason? Simple, because even though they are sliders, they sell for well over AU money. TPG's "grade" them as MS-62 because this is what they sell for . . . "62" money. As they market (i.e. coin pricing) changes, so will the way TPG's "grade" coins.

Also, it IS likely that todays 65's will show up in 66 or 67 holders in the future. Just like, if left to reholder, todays 65's would someday be "graded" as 63 or 64.

Lane

stman

<< <i>The standards have finally been confirmed. remember, certification has only been around for 18 years. I don't think its so bad that the first 15 of them were a self examination and cleansing. >>



LOL, I don't re-call the dealers saying the grading company's were doing this at the time of this so-called
"self examination and cleansing." Nope these were THE standards and they sold these coins all those years and raked in the cash, saying trust the grading company and me.

I wonder what happened to all these collectors that trusted the grading company's and dealers for those first 15 years? But we are to believe they got it right now in these last few years. What a joke.

goose3

<< <i>Sure hope not because imo many of the 65 holders today are yesterdays 63 and 64. But nothing would surprise me. >>



BAM!How TRUE!!!! Keep crackin' and playing the game. How many coins out there are Maxxed out and overgraded because of the game.




<< <i>There IS far more pinpoint accuracy now than ever. >>



that comment is just plain ridiculous. That's why a coin can be cracked and sent in 10 times and receive several grades and/or bodybags.........but keep crackin' and playing the game.





<< <i> "Can you give me one (1) example of a high profile coin that is graded now by PCGS or NGC lower than it was graded when it appeared in an auction catalog before 1998?" >>



Assuming you meant that this one high profile coin would have been certified by NGC/PCGS Prior to '98, I don't know that you'll find any.

wait......there's an 1804 dollar. Oh, I read your statement backwards.

tradedollarnut

There is no doubt that significant adjustment upward has happened since the early years at PCGS and NGC. Yet, an awful lot of that is because when they first started they simply didn't use the full grading scale. If you go back further and compare pre 1986 to current standards, then I think you'll find plenty of examples where current standards are tighter than in the past. Many many many prominent coins highly touted in catalogs of the past are now in much lower graded holders.

stman

TDN, I agree with a lot of what you've said but....



<< <i>Many many many prominent coins highly touted in catalogs of the past are now in much lower graded holders. >>



They don't send those catalogs to my kind of neighborhood.

tradedollarnut

They don't send those catalogs to my kind of neighborhood.

The Norweb 1870-S dollar was once cataloged as uncirculated. It's now in a PCGS AU58 holder. The Carter 1885 was cataloged as Gem Proof - now in a 62 holder. Go back and read numerous descriptions as "Gem Brilliant Uncirculated... with just a bit of cabinet friction" and later find the coin in a AU holder and you'll see what I mean. Standards now are higher for uncirculated than at any time in the past except for 1986- 2000.

So.... if you are basing your entire assertion on a 15 year period out of all the hundreds of years of coin collection, I guess I can agree. But Laura's correct if you look outside that period at the not so distant past.

stman

TDN... yes I believe I understand what you're getting at. I was around collecting prior to certification. And yes I remember all the 2x2's reading choice unc and gem unc. I also did my homework at the time to determine what was what. But yes indeed there were arguments over standards on what was choice and what was gem. I guess that's what Miss Sperber was referring to. I just can't swallow the part it took 15 years for them to get it right. And now they are consistent. I wonder what we'll hear 3 years from now.

Don't matter to me though because I really don't listen. See my sig line.

Catch22

You would think grading well circulated coins would be much more consistent than grading Mint State coins. I think grading skills have been so keenly focused on Mint State (for obvious reasons) that the services have been particularly sloppy with circulated coins.

I'll take grading services seriously when they start having each of their graders focus on a limited number of series...giving a more specialized consistency in assigned grades. I just don't believe you can consistently and accurately grade 40 different series of coins at any given time and with little more than a quick glance and take into account all the particular nuances of each series and the various minting problems of the branches and particular dates.

I don't expect to see that happening anytime soon because the industry and participants haven't demanded better. I agree with Laura, we are way better off with the services than without. Still, I'd give the best among them a grade of C at best.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>The Norweb 1870-S dollar was once cataloged as uncirculated. It's now in a PCGS AU58 holder. The Carter 1885 was cataloged as Gem Proof - now in a 62 holder. Go back and read numerous descriptions as "Gem Brilliant Uncirculated... with just a bit of cabinet friction" and later find the coin in a AU holder and you'll see what I mean. Standards now are higher for uncirculated than at any time in the past except for 1986- 2000.

So.... if you are basing your entire assertion on a 15 year period out of all the hundreds of years of coin collection, I guess I can agree. But Laura's correct if you look outside that period at the not so distant past. >>



Interesting. But I still think that for every 1 coin you can show me that (like the Norweb 1870-S) is now slabbed at a lower grade than when it was described raw in a catalog, I can show you a hundred or a thousand that are higher now than they were then.

Boom

So, I've read all this and found that I have some first generation, itty-bitty PCGS "rattlers" in MS 66,

Does this mean there is a real good chance that they would be 67s now? They sure look like 7s to

me!

Now, someone said something about coins that once were CH BU or Gem now residing in PCGS AU

58 slabs. What happened to PCGS coins keeping their grades/ not being downgraded?

Computers= consistency!

astrorat

<< <i> Now, someone said something about coins that once were CH BU or Gem now residing in PCGS AU 58 slabs. What happened to PCGS coins keeping their grades/ not being downgraded?! >>



Okay, everyone repeat after me . . . MARKET GRADING . . . now you got it!

Lane

astrorat

<< <i>Regardless of what anyone thinks, what the grading companies have done, and are doing today is far superior to before they existed. >>



In what sense? I would agree that you are absolutely correct when it comes to authentication, but I would not necessarily agree when it comes to grading. Far too many collectors do not take the time to learn how to grade and simply use the TPG's as a crutch. I mean, really, how many people NEED to have obviously circulated coins professionally graded?!? It's numismatic laziness. Did these same folks not collect before we were graced by the TPG's?

Witness the number of times that coins are resubmitted so the collector (or dealer) can "make" a higher grade. The reason for this is greed, pure and simple. I do not agree that this is best for the hobby.

With all that said . . . with sight-unseen sales, TPG's (at least the big four) are important since there is SOME measure of consistency as compared with raws coins. Also, I do believe that the TPG's serve a critical role with respect to authentication, but that appears to be a minor reason why coins are submitted.

Lane

GOLDSAINT

“I'll take grading services seriously when they start having each of their graders focus on a limited number of series...giving a more specialized consistency in assigned grades. I just don't believe you can consistently and accurately grade 40 different series of coins at any given time and with little more than a quick glance and take into account all the particular nuances of each series and the various minting problems of the branches and particular dates.”

Catch22, I totally agree, not only that but it is absolutely necessary that the top 2 certifiers begin eventually to grade and slab all coins with notations as is done by anacs. The biggest fraud in the market today is raw coins that pass from hand to hand listed as something they are not because PCGS and NGC refuse to grade them. Not only that but many “rare” coins remain unslabbed because, they have a scratch, or were dipped, or have some other small problem. Many of these coins are R5’s to R7’s.

As to your comment about having graders that grade only one series, if we can’t have a license and certification process for top graders at least they should be limited to one or two series. In my recent submittal to NGC of my Bust halve collection it was obvious that that the graders were just lost when it came to grading these coins that came from mints that had polished dies, broken dies, clashed dies etc. I would challenge any grader at PCGS or NGC to have total knowledge of Mr. Overton’s book and all potential 20 grades for every coin in that Bust halve series.

dorkkarl

it's reasonable & appropriate for market-grading standards to change. not so w/ technical grading though

K S