Grading standards seem tougher today.Thoughts?

bestclser1

Most of us know the OGH thing is myth.I believe than in general,its tougher to make higher grade coinstoday,excluding Moderns.Thoughts?

fc

my opinion is that grading by PCGS during the OGH time frame
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.

i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.

i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.

PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold.

pharmer

I agree that they are tougher at pcgs. Not at ngc though.

Stuart

bestclser1: An exception to the general rule is that PCGS has definitely tightened up a lot in the last few years on assigning the PL and especially the DMPL designation to Morgan Dollars.

Many "Old Green Holder" and early blue label slabbed Morgan Dollars designated as DMPL under the old 6" mirror reflectivity standard, will only make PL under today's stricter approximately 8" mirror reflectivity standard.

bestclser1

I think both services and i also agree PCGS is tougher,are tighter from scrutiny after the Ohio/Noe publicity.I have many older holdered coins that i feel were generously graded compared to todays standards.Jmo

bestclser1

<< <i>bestclser1: An exception to the general rule is that PCGS has definitely tightened up a lot in the last few years on assigning the PL and especially the DMPL designation to Morgan Dollars.

Many "Old Green Holder" and early blue label slabbed Morgan Dollars designated as DMPL under the old 6" mirror reflectivity standard, will only make PL under today's stricter approximately 8" mirror reflectivity standard. >>

Stuart,Totally agree about PLs and DMPLs.Also Morgan toners.

RedneckHB

<< <i>my opinion is that grading by PCGS during the OGH time frame
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.

i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.

i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.

PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold. >>



In my series, I have yet to see an OGH that I thought deserved the grade. Many have been overgraded by as much as 2 points. I guess thats why they are still OGH.

bestclser1

<< <i>

<< <i>my opinion is that grading by PCGS during the OGH time frame
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.

i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.

i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.

PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold. >>



In my series, I have yet to see an OGH that I thought deserved the grade. Many have been overgraded by as much as 2 points. I guess thats why they are still OGH. >>

Totally agree.

fc

it sure is interesting how it differs series to series.
i bet a lot of copper labeled RD must be RB now days?

291fifth

In my opinion, today's grading standards are a joke.

OKbustchaser

<< <i>In my opinion, today's grading standards are a joke. >>



They are. Of course, they always have been with the major TPG's ( yes, even those who furnish a nice internet forum). As long as they continue to insist that coins with visible wear can be labled MS then they will continue to be a joke. As long as they continue to lable coins with wear in the fields as AU (ie wear on the LOWEST portion not the highest) instead of XF the standards will continue to drop.

pharmer

<< <i>In my opinion, today's grading standards are a joke. >>




Especially on Morgans at NGC. Overgraded, stars on everything. But they understand coin accumulators' egos, and play to that. Pretty smart marketing.

RedneckHB

i bet a lot of copper labeled RD must be RB now days?

Just browse through the Heritage auction archives.

rhedden

I'm currently looking through my friend's Barber coins certified in 1990, all housed in PCGS holders- and I can say that about 10 % of the coins are overgraded, 25 % grade the way they would today, and the rest will upgrade by 1-2 points when we re-submit.

I think PCGS is more consistent with assigning correct grades today, and they were more prone to making mistakes in the old days. There are a few MS-62 coins in th Barber dimes that look like 65's, and a couple of 65's that don't look as good as a few of the 62's. Today, at least the grades they give out usually makes sense.

RYK

In my series, I have yet to see an OGH that I thought deserved the grade. Many have been overgraded by as much as 2 points. I guess thats why they are still OGH.

This point has been hashed and rehashed time and again (and again). My final opinion, based on my experience, is as follows:

When a collection put together quite some time ago comes to market, one finds that many of the older holder coins are indeed undergraded. On the other hand, browsing through Heritage boxes, ebay listings, or coins on the bourse, coins in older holders are as likely to be overgraded, puttied and turned in the holder, or otherwise dogs as they are to be accurately graded or undergraded.

rhedden

RYK's point is well taken- an OGH coin that has been floating around at major shows for 10 years is probably still in that holder for a reason. Many dealers have viewed it and decided it has no shot of upgrading (isn't that the definition of "low-end"?). A "fresh" OGH coin that hasn't seen the light of day since 1990 is frequently, but not always, undergraded.

291fifth

About the only "undergraded" (or are they actually "properly graded") coins you will find in older holders today are inexpensive ones where there is no financial incentive for a crack-out and resubmission. A good example of this is a 1937-S Buffalo Nickel in NGC MS65 in a very old "fatty" holder that I gave my nephew as a type coin. The coin is at least 66 or even 67 by today's standards but it just isn't valuable enough to warrant playing the crack-out game.

TorinoCobra71

I agree, tougher at PCGS.

TC71

ziggy29

<< <i>The coin is at least 66 or even 67 by today's standards but it just isn't valuable enough to warrant playing the crack-out game. >>

It would if the coin made 67. But given the difference in value from 66 to 67 ($110 to $1700) listed in the PCGS guide from 66 to 67, it would probably have to be a borderline 68 to get a 67 designation.

cape

read my lips ,pcgs has loosened a little bit compared to the beginning of the year. remember folks you cannot become intimidated, if you know how to grade and you dont get the grade you cant give up!

coynclecter

80% of the coins in OGH are a grade higher using todays standards. However, 95% of those have already been upgraded. What's left are the 20% that were on the low end when they graded and are PQ now.

roadrunner

I must have been lucky to pick up a pair of old holdered coins this past weekend, both gold. An OGH MS 63 $10 Indian and an old fattie NGC MS63 $20 Lib. The PCGS coin is nice for the grade, the NGC is a probable upgrade. I keep showing up at local shops and these still keep trickling in. Some myth.

roadrunner

SamByrd

yepp, PCGS is tougher and for the better, the market looks at PCGS coin as the leader in tpg's.

ER

It's all over the dart board, imho.

bestclser1

What i do believe is true is % wise PCGS rattlers and very old NGC fatties have a higher number of undergraded coins.Todays grading standards are i hope getting more consistant.

Elcontador

Have to disagree re the rattlers. The overwhelming majority of nice coins in rattlers have long been cracked out in an attempt to upgrade them. Most of what you'll find now are nasty, overgraded, or ugly, technically graded coins. You'll also find some old copper with 5-10% RD classified as RB, which no smart person wants, because if they were sent in today, they would be reclassified as BN.

Re nice for the grade coins, I think almost everything graded 10 years ago would upgrade. I have to shake my head when I've seen many coins graded in the last few years which got a bump for the toning or eye appeal, and the technical aspects of the coin were ignored. That's how we got "market acceptable" graded coins. No thank you.

BigBen

Lincoln grading is tough by any of the services right now. I've got two 1930s NGC 66 Lincolns that might grade 65 right now and 3 PCGS 50s Lincolns in 66 that might grade 67 a couple of years ago. I think the two NGC 66s I have are ANA MS-66s but PCGS or NGC would probably hit them with a 65 because they don't a bright enough compared to anything I've seen lately. Can ANY Lincoln stay as bright as PCGS wants them now to certify 66 in a slab for more than 10 years? Most of the PCGS Lincolns I've seen in the newer slabs have a 67 brightnessluster to get a 66, whereas older ones I've seen can have a subdued brightness (but still very high in luster). If anybody knows please give an opinion!

BigTom

<< <i>read my lips ,pcgs has loosened a little bit compared to the beginning of the year. remember folks you cannot become intimidated, if you know how to grade and you dont get the grade you cant give up! >>



I think we found the PCGS mole.