Interesting comments in Rick Tomaska's mid-January newsletter.

Russ

<< <i>In the face of escalating values for top-quality coins, both NGC and PCGS seem to have really tightened their grading standards, recognizing that a coin they give a very lofty grade to may command a tremendous price on the market. With these tight standards, PCGS and NGC seem to be saying, “If a coin is going to sell for big $ on the market, it had better look like it deserves the price!” >>



The services have tightened up?

Russ, NCNE

Myqqy

God forbid that anyone should grade coins consistently without regard to market value.

ER

<< <i>

<< <i>In the face of escalating values for top-quality coins, both NGC and PCGS seem to have really tightened their grading standards, recognizing that a coin they give a very lofty grade to may command a tremendous price on the market. With these tight standards, PCGS and NGC seem to be saying, “If a coin is going to sell for big $ on the market, it had better look like it deserves the price!” >>



The services have tightened up?

Russ, NCNE >>


Look at the Reiver's NGC graded coins, and the opposite is true.

eagle7

More like putting the screws on people Russ. I think something different is giving the graders eye problems with regards to the proof cameo coins from 1950 to 1964 and the SMS coins from 65 to 67. And that is simply this. With the large number of modern proofs flowing into both grading services, but especially PCGS, the graders are pressed into service to grade both series. When that happens, I think the graders lose their eye for the older proof coins cameo depth because the modern series always come with the deepest blast white cameo. Couple that with putting the coin under a very bright light source, which greatly dims the cameo on the older proof coins and you can easily grade a proof coin from the early series as a cameo when the same coin a few years ago would have been a hands down DCAM. JMHO.

northcoin

I think this is a take off of a comment made by a former grader.

michael

oh my

my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my

i have seen the first ultra cameo trade dollar 1881 proof64 graded by ngc back in 1998/1999 and it has deeper mirrors and more frost than most all post 1981 silver proof coins

100proof1957

This is all just crazy talk !

BillJones

<< <i>

<< <i>In the face of escalating values for top-quality coins, both NGC and PCGS seem to have really tightened their grading standards, recognizing that a coin they give a very lofty grade to may command a tremendous price on the market. With these tight standards, PCGS and NGC seem to be saying, “If a coin is going to sell for big $ on the market, it had better look like it deserves the price!” >>



The services have tightened up?

Russ, NCNE >>



I have seen some pretty conservative grading on some truly rare date coins, but I've not seen it on some "commercial rarities" like 1877 Indian and 1909-S-VDB cents. So far as fairly common coins go, they have gotten progressively loosey-goosey.

Shamika

<< <i>So far as fairly common coins go, they have gotten progressively loosey-goosey. >>


Agreed.

SUPERCARCOINS

........they are tight ; o' so tight

Steve27

"The services have tightened up?"

Bwhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!

Cameohunter

Russ

I don't see a tightening of standards with my submissions. The glut of modern proofs submitted to TPG companies with unquestioned DCAM contrast is not likely any greater than a year ago or five years ago. The fact that the services are not adding many additional cameo and deep cameo coins to the already small populations from the 1950's may only mean that the likely candidates from raw proof sets have dried up. There may not be many additional TPG holdered cameo examples upgradable deep cameo that have not already been upgraded. The earlier proofs at the top of their populations are rare and are likely to stay that way even without a tightening of standards.

It is reasonable to understand how a grader faced with hundreds of deep cameo 2006 coins might need to recalibrate when examing an earlier proof from the 1950's. PCGS always seems tough on NGC proof coin crossover attempts but I have seen recently graded cameo coins from the 1950's where the PCGS graders seem to cut the earlier proofs a little slack. A 1956 Jefferson that could have gone either way at PCGS just came back as a PR 67 DCAM.

However we arrive there Rick is correct that the finest examples will continue to be rare. Their future value will likely depend on how many new dedicated proof collectors join the hunt for the finest coins.

roadrunner

While the TPG's may tighten up from time to time, the long term trend is too loosen, loosen, loosen. Just like the FED and money supply. There is no going back. Because it would cost the TPG's and the FED money....serious money. Might cost them both their business and their jobs as well. And they are not about to give it back. Inflation and gradeflation are not going to be removed from our vocabulary. We get bouts of tightening in M3 and grading just to provide some semblance of "responsibility" from the overseers. This cycling also creates market opportunities for top notch dealers/graders as well as bankers and currency traders. That's the game. Steady and consistant makes no money for the big boys...that's why you don't see it as a long term trend. There's money to be make in inflation, and that's the name of the game.

Much of the reason for the market taking off again in the late 90's was due to loosening (re-inventing the upgrade game). By grading looser and looser you continue to inflate the coin asset bubble...until it pops. That worked from 1975 to 1980 as well. By 1980 almost anything with luster was being marketed as gem MS65 (most of those would be called MS63 or MS64 today). There was not time in 1989-90 to grade inflate as the TPG's barely got off the ground. The low number of coins graded is what made the prices soar as well as investor money. This time around they can follow the 1980 scenario again.

Note: I was intrigued by Tomaska's 1939 Merc dime PCGS PF68 Cam in this week's issue of CW - at $22,000. My what a difference the 3 letters Cam can make.

roadrunner

BillJones

Let's cut to the chase.

Once in coin gets into a slab where it has been overgraded, it almost always stays in the stab. If a coin is conservatively graded in the slab, it's going to get cracked out and regraded if regrading it makes economic sense.

The bottom line is overgraded will be long term trend so long as the grading services let their standards move up and down over time.

TwoSides2aCoin

Subjective vs. Objective

opinion vs. opinion

How does one tighten a standard ?
Who's scale ? Scientific vs. Economic
..... a whole bunch of little dollars add up to Big Dollars, too !
Big Dollars vs Big Egos

I contend that the race is just starting to heat up.... and in comes a whole new batch of collectors with MODERN crap who will someday be recognized as LEADERS in the field of Presidential Dollars.

roadrunner

Coupling together what Bill Jones and Coinguy1 just said, sort of seals it....... the remaining coins in holders continually strive to be overgraded. And it is just so happens that this is a great model for many knowledgeable people to profit on.

roadrunner

Cameohunter

Roadrunner

You were intrigued by Tomaska's 1939 Merc dime PCGS PF68 Cam at $22,000. I cannot fault Rick for trying. He can always go down but it just might sell at that price. He might as well go for it - capitalism is great.

We may shy away from some of his list prices but as a (the) market leader in his specialty the prices he obtains help the average collector who sometimes has CAM and DCAM coins to sell. I found in real estate that the higher priced premium properties in a market area can lift the whole market.

Mark

SUPERCARCOINS

hey Marty -i suppose R.T dosn`t know what he`s talking about ??