Musings and questions on the concept of ""low end" and "PQ" for the grade&q

SanctionII

......... so please favor me with your thoughts.

This thread is prompted by the thread about Mr. Hall's statements on the Q&A Forum on FS Jeffersons.

The Sheldon 1-70 grading scale gives the impression of precise, objective criteria which determines what numerical grade should be assigned to a coin. Many collectors know that this impression is false, yet many persons new to the hobby and members of the non collecting public do not.

We also hear terms of "low end" and "high end" or "PQ" for the grade. These terms give the impression that for a given grade (i.e. MS 64) a spectrum exists with multiple components (i.e. low end, average and high end; or 64.1 through 64.9) into which an MS 64 coin would fit. This also further gives the impression of precise, objective criteria which determines whether a 64 coin is low, middle or high end for the grade.

The following questions presume that grading standards do not change. "Technical grading" as opposed to "Market grading" is presumed to be in place. The following questions explore the topic of to what extent, if any, is coin grading in any way "objective" (instead of it being 100% subjective).

Does anyone believe that they (for a specific series they specialize in, or for US coins in general) have the ability to look at a coin and with certainty say that it is a particular numerical grade (i.e. 64); and does anyone know any other person who believes the same? If so, what is it that gives you (them) this ability?

Further, does anyone believe that they (or anyone that they know) can determine if a coin with a given grade (i.e. 64) is low end, middle, or high end for the grade? if so, what is it that gives you (them) this ability?

Further do you believe (or do you know anyone who believes) that a coin assigned a given grade (i.e. 64) can never (assuming the coin stays in the same condition in the slab) cross the line to a higher grade (i.e. a high end 64 goes to a 65) or a lower grade (i.e. a low end 64 falls to a 63)?

If a coin can go up or down in grade (i.e. high end 64 goes to a 65; or low end 64 goes to a 63), does the high end coin in the given grade automatically become a low end coin in the next higher grade (i.e. can a high end or PG 64 ever become anything more than a low end 65); or does a low end coin in a given grade automatically become a high end coin in the preceding lower grade (i.e., can a low end 64 ever become anything other than a high end, PQ 63)?

Please excuse the length of my post (I do get wordy and drone on, but hey, what do you expect from a lawyer), give some thought to the questions and your answers; and maybe we will have an interesting discussion.

Thanks in advance, SanctionII.

tradedollarnut

Further, does anyone believe that they (or anyone that they know) can determine if a coin with a given grade (i.e. 64) is low end, middle, or high end for the grade?

Yes. I can do so in the series I collect.


if so, what is it that gives you (them) this ability?

Experience.

ColonialCoinUnion

I respect TDN's ability in his series and I have the audacity to believe I could do the same in colonials (and maybe a couple of other series), but it is very difficult or impossible to grade coins consistently relative to one another when you only have one of them in front of you at a time.

Steve27

I believe that TDN speaks from experience (didn't he win one of the PCGS grading contests).



"Further, does anyone believe that they (or anyone that they know) can determine if a coin with a given grade (i.e. 64) is low end, middle, or high end for the grade? if so, what is it that gives you (them) this ability?"

That's easy, given a slabbed coin of a particular grade, eye appeal then determines if it's low, middle, or high.

rhedden

"High end" to me means the coin actually looks like it was undergraded by 1-2 points, and should be re-submitted if it's worth the $$. These coins are infrequently encountered in dealers' inventories. "Middle" means that if you cracked it out and re-submitted it, you'd expect it to grade the same, but maybe it would go up or down a point. "Low End" means it just barely made the assigned grade.

Walking around at a big show like Baltimore, I'd say that 40 % of the coins in PCGS-NGC holders are low-end, and 60 % are accurately graded. That skewed distribution results from many re-submissions of accurately graded or high-end coins. Also keep in mind that the coins sitting in dealers cases are just exactly that: sitting in dealers' cases un-sold. Truly high-end coins seldom make it to the floor because they're culled from the auctions by dealers and re-submitted, or locked away in collections. Coins marked "PQ" or "High end" in dealers' cases are usually accurately graded, not PQ, and sometimes are actually low-end.

mhammerman

In response...

I'm a fan of the concept of good for the grade, average for the grade, or poor for the grade. Unfortunately, my series is the $5 and $10 indians and they are notorious for difficulty in grading, particularly the 10's with the weak strikes in the early years and of course the 5's are particularly difficult anyways. So, I use the skin as my first indicator of grade...if it is not original, I'm not a buyer. After that, then we can talk about grade. I still struggle with grading my series and though I have looked at a few hundred, it will take looking at thousands before I'm confident. But...that being said, the 64.1-64.9 concept you offer is possibly more valid for some of the other series such as morgans. Back in my morgan days, we (amongst ourselves) could assign decimal points to the grades because we looked at so many and there were so many around. For example, on a solid 65 morgan a medium cheek rub...it's a 65.3, minor reverse reed ding in the field, 65.5, weak/late strike 65 with no distractions, 65.8. So, it may be more valid for some series (having split grades) more than others and granted, this was before tpgs but we used it none the less.

That being said, the collector must be aware of splits in the grade, particularly with pricey coins such as gold or low mintage issues or very early issues. There are a number of indian 63's that I have seen and even more so in 62/61 that it is fairly obvious that some of the coins have been cracked out and resubmitted until they received the next higher grade. So, you get to pay full 63 money for a high/mid level 62 coin that is maybe worth half as much as the going price. Beyond being the rip-off that it is for the uninformed collector or the rip for the informed collector, it is none the less the reality of buying tpg graded coins.

So, to entertain your discussion, my offering would be that with some series, split grades are more important than in other series (its about the money) but split grades (good, average, poor) exist and if you can't tell the difference, you are going to get hosed if you don't know or make a rip if you do...depends on how many you have looked at and how well you know your series. I am very interested in going to the ANA grading seminar next summer for more schooling. That would be money well spent. Meanwhile, I continue the struggle and I go to shows and I look at photos and I read the books and I talk to people and visit shops and learn. It's plenty of fun and intellectually satisfying and very good for the wallet.


Coin on

ziggy29

"High end" coins are the ones that are cracked out again and again until they become "low end" coins at a higher grade.

100proof1957

i have a 41 S Walker that i have owned since the BOOM of 88

Eye appeal makes it 65 shot 66 all day long

Today its a 64 NGC

Days gone by

64 PCGS
64 Hallmark
64 Anacs

Weak strike knocks it down,even though the issue is known for a weak strike !

SanctionII

I was hoping to garner some really good responses to my initial post.

I have not been disappointed. Thanks for your responses, they are all very interesting, thought provoking and educational. Hopefully we will see a few more later on today.

cladking

The problem isn't with the typical coin. Experts can agree on a large percentage of an
issue with near total unanimity. The problem is with the small percentage of coins with
questionable surfaces or with some attributes of gems and other attributes of lower
grades. There are also these same coins that can be "liners" in other regards such as
whether they are unc or AU, FB or not, etc.

Some series are relatively easy to grade and don't require the kind of expertise that
something like trade dollars or bust half dimes require. Some series have large numbers
of coins that are "subjective" and some don't.

In almost all cases though it's not grading, it's not the determination of condition that
requires an opinion. The condition is apparent if not obvious, it is the estimation of value
which is the final grade that requires expertise. If we were just grading the coins even
neophytes would basically agree on the grades of most all coins. If we were just grading
the coins then the grade would be sufficient information to get a mental image of the coin
and to compare it with other examples, but we are actually pricing coins which is far more
difficult for non-typical examples.

BlindedByEgo

You've made me think, and I hate that

I believe, as a collector/ hoarder and not a person who derives their income from this business, that times are much more complicated in the post-TPG world. TPGs are tasked with objectifying something that is essentially subjective - and fortunes are won and lost based upon their success.

Subjective factors - color, eye appeal, originality, luster - are balanced with the objective factors, such as physical damage like contact mark counts in the fields and devices, placement of the marks, and physical size of luster break events (my list of factors is no doubt incomplete). Add to this the factor of strike, which is determined by series and issue year , further complicates this, as I believe strike combines in itself both objective and subjective factors. Yet out of this we end up with a system that must compress this into 70 points!

It's like trying to weigh diamonds with a butchers' scale!

Years ago, it didn't appear that there was such an emphasis on what we would consider minute variations in stated grade. I suppose that in the lofty levels of the business to which I am not privy, stated grade is not as critical (for the truly rare issues) - the mere existance of the coin for sale drives a price. Down in the trenches, as most of us know, many hundreds, even thousands of dollars can swing on a one point shift in stated grade on a "widget".

Would changing to another system be superior? I don't think so. If coins were truly a mass-market product, then the investment of resouces and temporary disruption might be worthwhile. As limited and small as the market is, I don't believe that the will nor the wherewithall exists to take on such a challenge - nonwithstanding that the upheaval would no doubt create uncertainty in the market. Opportunists and con artists love to work in that kind of environment.

So, in closing, understanding the use of descriptives such as low end and PQ and being able to identify those consistently gives an individual a real advantage in the market. I know several people personally, and many more by reputation, that have demonstrated that ability. Because it is subjective in nature means that consistently does not mean perfectly.




Edited for minor clarification.

BigTom

For most types that I've studied, I can see it well at the 64-65 split, almost as well at the 63-64 split, less so at the 65-66 split. But that's just the grade of the majority of the coins I've looked at. Can't afford above that, not attracted below that.

SanctionII

Please keep your comments coming.

Conder101

I believe I could probaly be consistant within a three point range (one point above or below). I do not believe it is possible to be more accurate than that. If it was possible the crackout game would not exist because the people employed by the grading firms would also have that skill and every time a coin came in it would be consistantly graded to that same one point.

As far as the second question goes, If I don't think grading to a single point can be done consistantly, I definitely don't believe that grading to 1/3 of a point is possible.

And for the third question, with a three point "cushion" of course a grade can shift from one point to another. That's the result of not being able to be absolutely consistant.