Which is Actually Worse in Reality?

dragon

A) A market acknowledged second tier grading company that nearly consistently overgrades (by common standards) 1/2 - 1 1/2 points, but will not holder problem or counterfiet coins. You can nearly always depend on getting a slightly overgraded coin and can price accordingly. Market acceptance and liquidty is marginal and based on each coins quality and degree of overgrade.

A market acknowledged first tier grading company, market leader, and fierce competitor with another market acknowledged first tier grading company. One that has changed their company grading standards numerous times since their inception, loosens and tightens their standards based on market conditions (denys this), politcal bias, how their primary competitor is currently grading, and a host of unknown other internal variables. Market acceptance and liquidty is strong regardless of date of grading.

Which HYPOTHETICAL example(s) is more likely to be beneficial or detrimental for the hobby over the long term, if any?

morgannut2

The assumption is that the big 2 are in fact always changing their standards for arbitrary and caprious reasons. Actually I think this may go on at the big wholesaler type level where there are a lot of games and big money. But at the collector level, it would be very difficult to first train graders, and then be constantly retraining them for competitive or other imagined reasons. The primary reason for percieved "tightness" is more reasonably instead due to big BACKLOGS and a need get the coins out at a grade where there will be no liability/no questions. In my series (Morgans) I could easily pump out 3-5000 coins at a few seconds a coin, as long as I was tight by one grade and spent a bit longer on expensive keys. In the long run the problem is all those low end coins that got through that really might have just made the grade. These "just made its" tend to congregate at coin shows in masse--and lead you to believe that this junk is the norm, when it is not. For what it's worth I just crossed 4 Morgan keys, and every one got the exact same grade. But on my common less than $125 stuff several coins changed by as much as 3 grades. The value difference on the commons was however absolutely trivial.

mr1931S

Interesting question that deserves my most well thought out answer. Back later.

DrWho

<< <i>The primary reason for percieved "tightness" is more reasonably instead due to big BACKLOGS and a need get the coins out at a grade where there will be no liability/no questions. In my series (Morgans) I could easily pump out 3-5000 coins at a few seconds a coin, as long as I was tight by one grade and spent a bit longer on expensive keys. >>



Yep. MY PCGS SUBMISSION, 4 COINS, MUST HAVE TAKEN THE GRADERS ALL OF 2 MINUTES TO AFFIX A GRADE WITH 'NO LIABILITY/NO QUESTIONS'. SUSPECT THE BACKLOG, AMONG OTHER THINGS. LAST TIME I USE PCGS. THE 4 IN QUESTION MAY END UP AT NGC OR ANACS. PCGS IS NOT ON MY GOOD LIST AT THE MOMENT.

CalGold

Since the only coins that are being submitted for grading to company A are common dates and second rate/lower grade material, you would have a hard time finding anything nice in their holders. That leaves you with company B, like it or not.

CG

dorkkarl

b is definitely worse.

but neither does much for me.

K S