Is eye appeal causing grade inflation?
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
A tale of two trade dollars:
The Amon Carter 1885 trade dollar sold in 1991 as an NGC PF61, again in the same holder in 2003, then was graded PCGS PR62CAM and now is NGC PF63CAM. It's a beautiful coin, but has light hairlines.
The Norweb 1885 trade dollar sold in 1996 as a PCGS PR62 and again in 2004 as an NGC PF62. It's a beautiful coin that was unfortunately wiped when it was owned by King Farouk.
These coins started out in the early 1990's as 61 and 62 respectively - indicative of the originality of their surfaces. Now they are 63CAM and 62 respectively - more indicative of the eye appeal of the coins. So I ask you .... is eye appeal causing grade inflation?
The Amon Carter 1885 trade dollar sold in 1991 as an NGC PF61, again in the same holder in 2003, then was graded PCGS PR62CAM and now is NGC PF63CAM. It's a beautiful coin, but has light hairlines.
The Norweb 1885 trade dollar sold in 1996 as a PCGS PR62 and again in 2004 as an NGC PF62. It's a beautiful coin that was unfortunately wiped when it was owned by King Farouk.
These coins started out in the early 1990's as 61 and 62 respectively - indicative of the originality of their surfaces. Now they are 63CAM and 62 respectively - more indicative of the eye appeal of the coins. So I ask you .... is eye appeal causing grade inflation?
0
Comments
<< <i>Is eye appeal causing grade inflation? >>
Yes, it is a result of the TPG's move towards market grading.
<< <i>Yes, it is a result of the TPG's move towards market grading. >>
ANYTHING to avoid admitting that ANACS has a better idea.
roadrunner
I did NOT see the Norweb's 1885 Trade dollar in their vault room. Perhaps they were not very proud of it. I do not remember asking about it but I certainly remember they did not bring up that subject matter or the fact that they even owned one.
I need to look up again on how Dave Bowers described such coin in the B&M auction of such coin.
roadrunner
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
TDN - I think I know who wrote that for you.
Seriously, I think the real answer is best explained by your two photos. In your photos, the Carter coin looks like a superb gem. I'm sure it's not, of course. But the trend I see, especially at NGC, is towards arm's length grading. Literally. In other words, coins that look better at arm's length are now graded higher. An earlier-graded PR 63 with an obvious but not-too-severe staple scratch is probably still a 63 because you can see the staple scratch at arm's length. A old PR 63 with many light hairlines could now easily grade a point or two higher because the hairlines vanish at arm's length. Is that the same thing as a shift towards eye-appeal? Not really. For example, rainbow toning will not take an staple scratched old 63 any higher now than it would have in 1988.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
we will max all unc coins out as PR or MS-65,66,67,68 , 69 or 70.
There will be no grades of MS or PR 60, 61, 62, 63, or 64.
Camelot
I would suspect this was the case with the TPG's. They were extremely critical of hairlines back then. A single light line across the face of a Barber quarter doomed that coin to MS/PF 64 status, regardless of color. Today, that same coin could be a 66, especially if pretty. There's much more talk today about grading sans glass.
roadrunner
I am still grading coins with a glass like the old days and todays graders must
be using a "glass eye". I do not normally buy MS or PR-65 coins any more because
more times then not they are really not gems.As it has been thru the ages, the buyer
must exercise due diligence and care before spending the cabbage.
Camelot
<< <i>Chuck, that still sounds like market grading to me, basically saying "we haven't seen enough of these to know how to grade them", when the standards of grading should be set anyway. Interesting----------------------BigE >>
Ah, so that's the definition of market grading; I wasn't sure of its meaning.
Do the TPG's grade these coins then hope that no one ever sees them and wonders how in the HELL did THAT THING get a 65.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
[q A old PR 63 with many light hairlines could now easily grade a point or two higher because the hairlines vanish at arm's length. For example, rainbow toning will not take an staple scratched old 63 any higher now than it would have in 1988. >>
I think market grading is still to blame. The many light hairlines vanish as long as the graders have something else to look at, like rainbow toning, or other eye appeal.
<< <i>Is eye appeal causing grade inflation? >>
No, grade-flation is. For every eye-appealing coin that up-grades, there is probably a not-so-eye-appealing one that up-grades too. Personally, I don't think the former is any more ok than the latter.
other guys coin upgrades then thats bad.
I think I understand the system now.
Camelot
Cheers,
Bob
Actually, that definition is wrong.
I'd define "market grading" as a TPG grading to the loosest standard to which it can grade without being inundated with complaints of overgrading. Because the market will accept looser standards in a hot market, "market grading" implies looser grading in a hot market.
BTW, for all it's worth, I think the practice of "market grading" is largely a myth. It's more just an excuse people use to try to explain the erratic nature of subjective grading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Wouldn't work. Too many collectors want to buy the number on the holder.
Ya have to wonder though.......ten years from now, after everything is in a "70" holder, some enterprising grading service, with the right people behind it, may have a crack at "technical" grading.
The big two understand this - that is why they "tighten up" from time to time - but the trend over the last five years is definitely grade-flation. It has to stop somewhere.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is eye appeal causing grade inflation? >>
No, grade-flation is. For every eye-appealing coin that up-grades, there is probably a not-so-eye-appealing one that up-grades too. Personally, I don't think the former is any more ok than the latter. >>
Does the first upgrade CAUSE the second? You must not think so, else you would agree. So, what is causing the second upgrade, generally looser standards? I think we'd all agree with you that neither is o.k.
so, why is a wiped coin holdered by PCGS??
al h.
<<<<< I agree that market toning is the prime culprit for grade inflation. >>>>>>>>
What the heck is market toning?
Sort of reminds me of a "tweener" I saw about 4 years ago, of a PCGS 21-S half in XF-40 (detail was all there for it) but that thing had been polished to a brilliant sheen at some point in its life, then started to slightly mellow at the edges. I suppose they let it in because of the much better than average detail, but I have never since seen such an unappealing key date in a holder. Not even if it had been priced at a severe discount due to the polishing by the dealer that had it on display (which, of course, it was not. )
As Russ has shown elsewhere tonight, it certainly pays to at least be semi-cognizant of your stuff, regardless of what the plastic says. Not unlike when I (happily) had a choice between two common slabbed MS-62 2-1/2 Indians for my type set - one was clearly more appealing and all around better than the other; a teensy, unoffensive lamination hidden in the headdress explained why the better one didn't make 63. It was a no-brainer better choice as far as a 62 purchase...
I suppose the buyer must still beware!
Does that mean I have to yell TIMBERRRRRR!
<< <i>Ronyahski: You said:
<<<<< I agree that market toning is the prime culprit for grade inflation. >>>>>>>>
What the heck is market toning? >>
Ooops, market "grading". Thanks
I have never seen the coins you presented here but I have some comments and questions.
On the first is it possible the coin was undergraded to start with. Almost every 63 is graded as such because of hairlines. If they are severe then the coin should be a 60-62.
On the second coin the hairlines look terrible and probably should have been no higher than a 60 to start with.
You have seen them both. Is the Amon Carter nicer than the Farouk? And if so, how much nicer? And if it is nicer then it should have been graded higher to begin with.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
that fits into the "something like that" category. i would of course say "Does PCGS grade wiped coins" and the answer should be no. it's a pity that the coin has been wiped and thus harmed but in my mind it detracts from the many older proofs which were cared for properly and holdered. with all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by so many who want consistency out of a grading company, why is this kind of stuff so easily, casually explained away?? the coin is damaged, to my first glance looks like crap and shouldn't be holdered.
ANACS appears to have a clue here and a leg up on legitimacy with their net grading which is scorned by some, probably some of the same who tolerate grading wiped coins, just because. what's next, thumbing is OK because...................??
al h.
I do have a problem bumping a coin from a 65 to a 66 or a 66 to a 67 for eye appeal alone, because of the price levels for the extra point or two. If a coin is going to grade a Gem or better, it had better be a Gem or better and mark free.
<< <i> Because the market will accept looser standards in a hot market, "market grading" implies looser grading in a hot market >>
But as prices increase aren't the TPGs incurring greater financial risk if they overgrade since a grade guaranty claim will cost them more to settle?
<< <i>When the demand for high grade coins is strong there is always more pressure on the TPG's to upgrade to meet this demand >>
How does the market exert this pressure on the TPGs? Sure the volume of submissions goes up as raw coins come out of the woodwork and crackouts increase, but how does that pressure them to give higher grades?
I can see how a higher volume would allow graders in less time to grade each coin but that is just saying that the risk of them making an error increases, and that error could result in an undergrade or an overgrade.
If anything, if one is to believe what some posters have said in other threads over the past year or two the game is to continue to grade low on high end coins knowing that they will be resubmitted for a shot at a higher grade.
CG
I have always believed that technical grading is the only way to go. Bumping up or subtracting a point or two based upon eye-appeal is only the opinion of the person looking at the coin. I mean, if you have an MS-63 Morgan that is simply that but has spectacular toning and they bump it up a point or two based upon the toning, you STILL have an MS-63 Morgan. At the same time, if it had detracting toning you'd be pretty pissed if it was knocked down a grade just because the guy grading it doesn't particularly care for that type of toning.
Technical grade and let the market decide how much more they want to pay for eye-appeal.
Cheers,
Bob
i have been doing this since 1973 and have recognized grade-flation in the late 80s ( since slabing began in 1986 ) and dubbed it as such in the early 90s ....it is imho that the services are merely ranking coins and in theory will eventually ( after they make 100 million ) anoint the best of the best...aka the monster ( of the date ) and a few of ( or more depending on the " look ").... what i call the under-monsters....and those coins will always be sought after....ALWAYS
as far as the rest of the population ..i break them down into 2 catagories.....good or higher eye apeal....or just coins...in which those 2 catagories will be subject to the laws of supply and demand...with both being a fixed supply obviuosly the most eye apealing coins will be sought after first right on down to the ugliest....and will be priced acordingly....but as i said it is all demand driven as the supply is fixed thus all coins will be ranked ( acording to the "look" )....and if you own the look you will ring the bell..if you dont you may have to wait a while
monsterman
ps...the hardest thing for all newbies to understand is grade-flation...they look at...for example diamonds and say it a f-vvs-2....period...and will always be just that...and cant possibly be a e-vs-1 someday....and they are right...but diamonds do not have a fixed supply...there are tons of them and tons more to be found and there is no upgrading diamonds as the grade is the grade...but coins on the other hand have a fixed supply....and thus my "ranking them " theory......
their mistake is they are trying to equate apples and oranges and do not understand the " landscape " of ( aka the nature of the beast ) the territory
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
Did you find the way back machine? Its a nice read.
Eye appeal only causes gradeflation if the coin deserves it. Today some would get that fourth party sticker.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>TDN
Did you find the way back machine? Its a nice read.
Eye appeal only causes gradeflation if the coin deserves it. >>
Some would argue a coin never deserves it.
<< <i>Today some would get that fourth party sticker. >>
Yes, fast forward to today and it appears that the coin can get both a higher grade and a sticker.
I think your examples are another sad instance of this.