Is NGC "market grading" for originality?--(also includes debate on toning and dipping)
RYK
Posts: 35,797 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have recently seen quite a few (and purchased a couple) circulated NGC gold coins that at first glance and closer inspection appear to be generously graded by a grade or two. After thinking about it a bit and discussing it with other more experienced collectors, I have come to the conclusion that what I might be observing is what I have hoped for all along. Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality. I do not see a similar phenomenon at PCGS. Any comments?
(Have I made my point clear?)
(originally posted across the street)
(Have I made my point clear?)
(originally posted across the street)
0
Comments
I feel that the grading services should issue technically correct, consistent and accurate grades, and if they choose they can designate coins as "original" vs. typical dipped, etc coins.
I prefer that the grading services don't increase a coin's grade by 1-2 points for originality, unless it falls ino the category of superior eye appeal, strong luster, or strong strike -- factors which are typically considered during the grading process.
As a collector, I prefer to make a personal and subjective value assessment of a particular coin (like my new 1901 PCGS AU-58 Barber Half below), which often allows me to purchase a coin at it's lower priced "plastic grade price" which may have a significantly higher "market value price" to the informed buyer and potentially other subsequent purchasers.
Photo and Coin from AirplaneNut (Jeremy Katz)
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
If what you say is true, it is a very welcome change. NGC and PCGS have been rewarding "processed" gold for quite some time and as you know, finding nice original pieces in any grade is getting tougher and tougher. Rewarding originality would certainly slow down the practice of "processing" and that is a very good thing.
However, the move towards "market grading" by the TPGs over the past years makes me sick to my stomach. The idea of placing a grade on the label based upon what they percieve as the value the coin will bring on the market is absurd. I pay them to grade the coin accurately, not to play god. "Oh, this 65 is devine, therefore let us bless it as a 66." I prefer the market determine the value of the coin, not NGC or PCGS.
There's too much evidence to the contrary for me to agree with your premise.
<< <i>iscussing it with other more experienced collectors, I have come to the conclusion that what I might be observing is what I have hoped for all along. Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality. >>
Like many grading factors, "originality" is an elusive and subjective concept IMO. Like Justice Potter Stewart said when the Supreme Court was trying to define porn, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it".
I strongly prefer originality, hence my dislike for "white" (read dipped) silver type coins.
In fact I don't think that "original" coin grades should be raised (inflated), but rather feel that unoriginal (dipped out, conserved, etc) coins should perhaps be down-graded which ANACS has bene doing and calling a net-grade...
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
There has to be some type of market "reward" for sending all those coins in to be laundered. Hence, the complimentary bump ups.
Just what we need, more conserved NGC MS65 seated dollars. As if there aren't enough of those already.
roadrunner
<< <i>I have recently seen quite a few (and purchased a couple) circulated NGC gold coins that at first glance and closer inspection appear to be generously graded by a grade or two. After thinking about it a bit and discussing it with other more experienced collectors, I have come to the conclusion that what I might be observing is what I have hoped for all along. Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality. I do not see a similar phenomenon at PCGS. Any comments?
(Have I made my point clear?)
(originally posted across the street) >>
Forgive me, but If I hadn't seen you post a variety of interesting, well informed things over the last several months I would have concluded that the author of this post had to be either head of PR for NGC or simply a loony.
I've seen what TDN has seen - tons of coins pass through NCS and get upgraded, which is pretty much the opposite of what you are theorizing. And this is in addition to the requisitie huge pile of overgraded stuff churning out of NGCs offices.
I believe you may be suffering from a combination of wishful thinking seasoned with an el grande' dose of rationalization for you to conclude that what appears to be liberal grading standards is actually something really good for the hobby.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you really threw me with this one.
As I have commented before, I think those in the latter category should be penalized, rather than rewarded in grade, but (unfortunately) they rarely are.
The grade matters so little with this coin, though. The textil is very dominating, despite what it looks like in the pic.
David
When I buy a PCGS or NGC graded coin, I'm not only buying the coin but I'm also buying the integrity of the Slab. That is why I usually am prepared to pay a premium for, say, a PCGS graded coin and NOT willing to pay a premium for some other slabbing services (unless an extraordinary circumstance).
I have not participated AT ALL in the so-called "conservation" movement now growing in popularity. I'm fairly certain that I never will too. If someone can please explain to me why a so-called "conserved" coin is not a doctored coin, I would be very much obliged.
For example, a gorgeously toned coin gets a bump in grade because it has nice eye appeal. However, the coin is only gorgeously toned because it has superior lustre which MAKES that color so eye-appealing, thus worthy of a bump (due to the lustre - which makes the color). Take away the superior lustre, and that gorgeous toning will look like ungorgeous mud (worthy of a downgrade?).
<< <i>MatteProof: I agree with you totally. In fact I don't think that "original" coin grades should be raised (inflated), but rather feel that unoriginal (dipped out, conserved, etc) coins should perhaps be down-graded which ANACS has bene doing and calling a net-grade... >>
I agree wholeheartedly. But we will never see it in our lifetime. The reason is due to a Right Wing TPGs conspiracy
Here's the deal. Its a very simple to understand. You can always dip a coin and re-submit to get a higher grade. You can never make a coin more original to re-submit for a higher grade. Therefore, when TPGs favor the "un-original" coins they create an incentive for re-submiting coins after a quick dip, thereby generating sales.
Ouch! I know that I do not get a paycheck from NGC, which leaves but one sorry alternative...
I certainly cannot disagree with most of what is said here. I must also laud MBT for his appropriate use of pornography on this thread
Some have brought up the sometimes fine line between conservation and cleaning. I do not have enough experience to tackle that but for whatever reason, the TPGs have given the okay for dipping, so we seem to see a lot of dipped gold coins. There is an even finer line between market-acceptable cleaned and CLEANED/Bodybag material. A few hairlines are okay, but a few more buy you a bodybag?
Since my hypothesis was so soundly rejected, I must conclude that NGC has grossly overgraded these coins in question. Optimist that I am, I was hoping for a different and more acceptable explanation.
<< <i>Since my hypothesis was so soundly rejected, I must conclude that NGC has grossly overgraded these coins in question. Optimist that I am, I was hoping for a different and more acceptable explanation >>
Would it help/make you feel better if I hypothesized that you grossly under-graded them, instead?
Not likely, but anything is possible.
In the near future, I will post some examples, like the 1866-S No Motto $5 VF-25 that I recently posted, and let you decide if the coins are over-graded or I am too critical.
I think that this "original" vs. "dipped & conserved" market perception and market acceptance will eventually come home to roost -- I'll explain with 3 examples...
1) When I began to collect PL/DMPL Morgans in the mid 1970's you could cherry-pick (and I did) a choice coin that by today's standards would grade MS-64-65 PL/DMPL for $25 instead of paying the market rate of $8-$12 for a standard frosty mint state coin. As you all know, since then market values have significantly increased for PL/DMPL's
2) Back then, I liked attractively toned coins and purchased some for their originality (not dipped). At that time most collectors preferred blast white coins, and shunned tarnished coins. Heck, the U.S. govt GSA CC Morgan Dollar Sale sold "tarnished" CC Morgans for $15 each (half price discount compared to the white ones), and called them "circulated" -- GSAGuy can corroborate or correct me if wrong... Now people are paying very steep (crazy?) premiums for colorfully toned coins...
3) Remember when dealers cracked out all of those tens of thousands of GSA Morgans from their original GSA plastic cases because they took up too much room in their travel bags & cases. Now we pay a premium for original holdered GSA CC Morgans -- and I actually prefer PCGS GSA designated CC Morgans over PCGS slabbed coins not so designated (as long as no big price premium is attached)..
My conclusion is an observation that true astute collectors will pay a premium for a PQ original coin, and series specialists can recognize them. I feel that the reason so many of us are aggressively collecting high eye-appeal AU-58's is bacause they present very compelling quality at relative value prices to many grade-inflated "commercial" mint state coins.
I'd be interested in others' comments... Which there are sure to be...
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
this idea has been bandied about before. i happen to be of the opinion that the services should try to stick to technically grading coins and not market grade, but i doubt that they'll ever stop now that they've started. the problem, as others have mentioned before, is that once a coin has been market graded by the grading service, it's market priced by whoever's selling it, so buyers like you and me end up paying a double premium.
here's an extreme example of what takes place from my lofty perch, with Buffalo Nickels as my victim series for no other reason than it's convenient. why do these coins get graded as they do, with consideration given to the fact that the branch Mint coins are often weakly struck or struck with overused dies?? wouldn't a collector see a coin graded as a technical MS61 and having a nice strike for the MM worthy of a premium?? do we really need the services to use their subjective judgement to market grade that coin at MS64?? do we really need the dealer who has it to tack on another premium?? i don't think the answer is yes to either question, but it's the reality of the current state-of-the-hobby, so i'd better get used to it or cash my chips in!!!
al h.
If we went to market grading...the standards become more subjective. There's always subjectivity to grading, but it seems to me that trying to do "market" grading would cause the same coin to change in grade over time because of what the market is currently saying.
Numeric grades should be numeric only and drop the AU and MS designations.
<< <i>NGC does have what they call 'star' grading. What it essentially means is that the coin is exceptional for it's grade. Either it has excellent eye appeal, or just misses being the next grade up. Coins with the star after the grade are usually the finest you can get in a given condition. Is this what you mean? >>
And once again some BAD information. The "*" given out by NGC is for exceptional eye-appeal only.... Period.
For numismatic purposes, I'll define originality as "the state of showing no visible deleterious effects from previous attempts to alter the coin's appearance."
Some will argue that a successfully dipped coin shows no deleterious effects. I disagree. It's just that the deleterious effects are outweighed by positive effects. Doesn't mean the coin's original.
After all, if the coin is NOT original it should not be holdered in the first place - right?
Wrong. In fact, most slabbed coins are not 100% original. A coin has to be pretty bad before it is not holdered.
Why should original coins be cherished? Simple. An original coin "feels" like it has materialized in our hands directly from its era of origin. In that way, it helps us connect with days gone by. I cherish that historical connection. By comparison, a dipped and stripped coin somehow loses much of that quality. Perhaps because the coin's history now includes a bunch of dip-happy nitwits.
As for RYK's initial thread topic, I've noticed a bit of the same for gold. It's almost like NGC has come to realize that they shouldn't force people to strip coins to get the grades. But I'll be the first to admit that I haven't seen quite enough recently graded coins to know that there is a real trend at play.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
al h.
<< <i>Why should original coins be cherished? Simple. An original coin "feels" like it has materialized in our hands directly from its era of origin. In that way, it helps us connect with days gone by. I cherish that historical connection. By comparison, a dipped and stripped coin somehow loses much of that quality. Perhaps because the coin's history now includes a bunch of dip-happy nitwits. >>
BINGO! The best post on this forum in weeks.
An original coin "feels" like it has materialized in our hands directly from its era of origin.
come on now, aren't you talking about two coins that look the same?? if an 1878 Morgan "materialized in our hands directly from its era of origin" shouldn't it be nice and shiny-bright-white just like "a successfully dipped coin" would look??
i understand what your saying, i think, but you seem to have screwed the pooch on the explanation.
al h.
Keets brings up an interesting point, how about coins dipped 50 years ago and retoned? Accepting that in the 1950s and 1960s it was standard practice to clean ALL coins in a coin collection, what makes you think that any of the coins currently being sold as "original" are untouched? Apparently this historical connection, romance, or whatever you wish to call it is not based on actual events since the actual history of a piece of silver in most cases cannot be known.
Which brings us to the abomination of market grading. What happens in another 20 years when oxidation is out and bright coins are back in? This could happen in a number of ways, including someone publishing a book on how to AT a coin so it cannot be detected or the market realizing that classic coins with luster (Barber coins for example) are outnumbered 100 to 1 by dirty dogs. Is PCGS and NGC going to buy back and reholder all coins for the new standard? This entire industry got derailed when luster was abandoned as a grading attribute and tarnish was substituted in its place.
No. Close, but no.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I rest my case.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If you think you understand Andy, then I think he didn't screw the pooch so badly at all. Or, why blame him for your almost understanding him? Maybe it is you who screwed the pooch on the understanding part and not he on the explanation...
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Iwog,
Begging your pardon, but WTF? Of the majors, which service (in your opinion) does NOT use luster as a primary component to a coin's grade?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I would totally disagree with you on that last statement. You dont see too many MS67/68 coins out there with any lower than above average luster...it is usually blazing.
Luster doesnt have to be white to be luster....
J
siliconvalleycoins.com
Wow, that is quite a statement. Mr. Iwog, are you merely speaking in superlatives just to force home your opinion, or do you have credible statistical evidence to support your assertion? Also, please define "dark" and "very little luster" in terms that significantly minimizes subjectivity of definition. I assume that "high grade" means at the superbe gem level?
Regards,
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
PCGS MS66 Boone, luster destroyed
PCGS MS66 New Rochelle, luster destroyed
PCGS MS66 Cincinnati, luster destroyed
NGC MS66 California, luster destroyed
NGC MS66 Delaware, luster destroyed
NGC MS66 Albany, luster destroyed
Grading services utterly ignore luster when determining a coin's grade.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Grading services utterly ignore luster when determining a coin's grade.
I'm honestly not sure if he's trolling or just out to lunch.
Luster is the primary component of grade - no ifs, ands or buts. To get higher than MS64 at PCGS, there had better be lots of it and no mishandling in the past by collectors [ie: significant obverse hairlines or other such post banking system impairments].
Nah, I think he's trolling.
Admittedly, I also don't know enough about the classical commems to say which date should come frosty, satiny or PL. That would effect how much luster one sees even if the coin were fresh as a baby's bottom.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I think the photographs you've shown may in fact be examples of photographs that don't accurate display the coins luster rather than examples of coins lacking sufficent luster to justify the MS-66 grades.
It's a judgement call regarding the degree to which toning (which is always going to diminish the brillance of a coin to some degree) is ultimate a negative factor as far as the eye appeal of the coin is concerned.
Should an original coin with some toning that only slightly diminishes luster account for more or a reduction in grade versus a coin that has been dipped yet still is very close to displaying full original luster? I'd opt for a higher grade for the original coin.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
NGC Finest known Wisconsin, MS68 - luster destroyed
PCGS MS67 Antietam - luster destroyed
With such extreme examples, there can be little doubt that luster is irrelevant to all grading services.
I knew the common excuse of "you can't tell the luster in the photograph" would come up. This is absolutely false and I often wonder if most of you even know what luster is. I think it's time for a lesson with photographs.............
Well, 50% of all superb gem specimens graded by PCGS and NGC would definately do it. But, how 'bout even coming close to 1% for starters... And, let's look at ALL AVAILABLE specimens and not just those that seem to prove your point.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
As far as I'm concerned, if NGC or PCGS can put a grade of MS68 on ONE SINGLE COIN that has been utterly stripped of all its luster, then there are only two possible conclusions:
#1 The graders are blind
#2 Luster isn't considered, because if it WAS considered, the FINEST KNOWN example would have some luster on it. DUH!