It's 2007...Let's start with a grading conumdrum. "Straight Grading" or "Relative Gr

saintguru

This is a real hot potato since there's NO 100% waterproof argument...

Do ALL coins in a series have to meet the same grading criteria or do mintages that were weak, highly circulated or extremely rare get graded RELATIVE to the handful of known examples? This is a very interested debate. We are not talking about jumping more than one grade (I haven't seen that) but the issue of the 1927-D Saint and the 1913 Liberty nickel have been brought up as being given "allowances".

There's another side of this, as well. That would be the very demanding grading that is applied to coins where the price jumps 4-10 fold in a single upgrade. A typical example in my arena would be a 1924-S MS64/65. The 64 sells for around 14K, while a MS65 would likely sell for ~150K these days? How hard is it to get a (great [add your coin]) MS64 upgraded to an MS65, just as an example? I think the coin must be a 65.5+ to get upgraded.

So there are two different grading anomolies and a conundrum. Let's have a rumble.

Cladiator

In my opinion a coin should receive a numeric grade based on the physical condition from wear and treatment of the surfaces. Mintages, costs, rarity, etc... should not have anything to do with the numeric grade assigned the coin. Of course, it's not a perfect world and I'm sure all kind of weird stuff is happening out there.

ttown

<< <i>In my opinion a coin should receive a numeric grade based on the physical condition from wear and treatment of the surfaces. Mintages, costs, rarity, etc... should not have anything to do with the numeric grade assigned the coin. Of course, it's not a perfect world and I'm sure all kind of weird stuff is happening out there. >>



I agree TPG's are in the grading bussiness not marketing. If the very best coins only grade MS65 then I'm sure the big money will follow even though there maybe high grades in the more common coins in the series. JMO

291fifth

Grading should be the same for all issues. No relative grading. If no coins exist that are good enough to merit a certain grade, too bad.
I've always felt that weakly struck coins should be downgraded to reflect the level of detail they exhibit, regardless of the level of wear.

mgoodm3

If the coin deserves it, the slab should show it. I don't care how rare or expensive. If the price of an extremely expensive coin in 65 goes down because more are graded, then so be it.

NumisOxide

<< <i>Grading should be the same for all issues. No relative grading. If no coins exist that are good enough to merit a certain grade, too bad. >>


I agree, well put 291fifth!

ziggy29

<< <i>I've always felt that weakly struck coins should be downgraded to reflect the level of detail they exhibit, regardless of the level of wear. >>

Normally I agree, but coins with a lack of detail but lots of luster are a gray area. If something has almost full luster and VF detail, I'd have a hard time justifying calling it a VF. But for lower grades where the luster isn't an issue, I agree completely. By that time it's almost impossible to distinguish between wear and strike anyway.

ttown

<< <i>

<< <i>I've always felt that weakly struck coins should be downgraded to reflect the level of detail they exhibit, regardless of the level of wear. >>

Normally I agree, but coins with a lack of detail but lots of luster are a gray area. If something has almost full luster and VF detail, I'd have a hard time justifying calling it a VF. But for lower grades where the luster isn't an issue, I agree completely. By that time it's almost impossible to distinguish between wear and strike anyway. >>



I'd say late 19th centery up that a downgrade maybe fine but the old screw pressed Bust it shouldn't apply.

Connecticoin

From my experience with grading, and observations of other coins, what Saintguru summarized is the reality, and is unlikely to change.

For example, with Morgans, common "liner" 64/65 coins (or 64.8 though 65.2), like the 1881-S, will almost always get a 65. The less common coins with 10x jump in values or more from 64 to 65, like the 1890-P, need the so-called "65.3" or higher (with at least 65.0 in all four grade components -- strike, luster, surfaces, eye appeal). I suspect these coins get more review time than the commons do, and if they come up short of 65 in any component, the get "64'd".

Connecticoin

Additional comments on "relative" grading:

I do not have much experience with this, but from my observations, this seems much less prevalent than the tightening of grading for scarcer coins. It appears that certain notoriously weakly struck coins (such as certain Buffalo Nickels) may get some leeway if NO well struck examples exist. However, others (such as New Orleans Morgans) have enough well struck ones in existence to NOT need allowances for weakly struck ones.

Also, it seems that more often than not if the population of coins is void of gems, not many are bumped on a relative basis (i.e. the 1920-P Saints). Exception here may be the extreme rarities that Saintguru cited.

ziggy29

<< <i>For example, with Morgans, common "liner" 64/65 coins (or 64.8 though 65.2), like the 1881-S, will almost always get a 65. The less common coins with 10x jump in values or more from 64 to 65, like the 1890-P, need the so-called "65.3" or higher (with at least 65.0 in all four grade components -- strike, luster, surfaces, eye appeal). I suspect these coins get more review time than the commons do, and if they come up short of 65 in any component, the get "64'd". >>

No question about it. I've seen 1884-S Morgans that get a 61 or a 58 grade that look like they'd make 64 with an O mint mark.

To some degree, particularly with condition rarity Morgans but elsewhere too, perception of conditional rarity becomes reality. That's one downside of providing a "grade guarantee."

topstuf

All you need to do to answer the question is to look at some early gold. By EITHER service.

It's obvious (to me at least) that for the past 2 years and a few months) the only rejection criteria for early gold has been holes or the use of sandpaper coarser than 80 grit.

Although that's an exaggeration, the early gold I've looked at in the past few years has been ludicrously graded in most cases.

IGWT

As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of grading is to indicate where a particular coin stands in relation to others of the same issue. Who cares if a coin is G-4 if every other known example is also G-4; or, at the other end of the spectrum, who cares if a coin is MS-70 if every other known example is also MS-70. Look at it this way: If there were 500 known examples of a certain issue, wouldn't you prefer that they be ranked 1 through 500; and, if that were possible, what difference would it make if the best example were MS63 or MS70?

True rarities (say, Low R-7 to R-8) should be graded relative to one another because it's possible, and there's really no need for "straight grading" when so few coins exist. Or, if a piece is unique, there's no point at all in assigning a grade. It's not possible, of course, to rank more common coins in this way because there are just too many of the buggers to compare one against all others. Still, we hope and expect "straight grading" of those coins, as Jay calls it, to reflect accurately a coin's condition relative to others of the same kind.

topstuf

I'll respectfully disagree, IGWT. I'd like to see coins graded with the date and mintmark covered if possible. If MS63 is the "top" for a particular issue, then fine. I'll strive for a 63. But I'd like to be able to see "in my mind's eye" the actual appearance of the coin, rare or not.

Morgan dollars do not HAVE "standardized" grades when a SF mint 65 is different from a CC mint 65.

And just because gold is "early" doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be able to visualize the surface from a WRITTEN grade. All the hoopla over not being able to grade from an image stems from this disparity of grades between issues.

tradedollarnut

I'll say you're both right. Extremely rare issues, 1804 original dollars for instance, should be ranked. But the grades should be close enough to reality for similar issues.

The Childs coin at PR68 is probably fine. Is the Siam coin really a 67? Is the Eliasberg coin really a 65? Probably not in relation to similar sized proofs of later issue. But their rankings are correct and they're within spitting distance of reality.

topstuf

"Ranking" is fine, but isn't that like saying if half the company is wiped out, then the corporals are generals?

I could be happy with the "FINEST KNOWN" VG sumpin or other.

DeusExMachina

<< <i>Grading should be the same for all issues. No relative grading. If no coins exist that are good enough to merit a certain grade, too bad.
I've always felt that weakly struck coins should be downgraded to reflect the level of detail they exhibit, regardless of the level of wear. >>



I completely agree. However, this is not the case with so many issues. It's too bad but a sign of the times.

cladking

No coin should get a pass no matter how tough it is in high grade. This is
an issue with several of the moderns that are tough in gem. I think it's a
disservice to maintain the fiction that they are equally available relative to
populations.

Coins should be graded on an absolute scale by series not on relative ones
by date. It would mean that some coins don't exist in high grade but that's
really already the case.

IGWT

<< <i>I'll respectfully disagree, IGWT. I'd like to see coins graded with the date and mintmark covered if possible. If MS63 is the "top" for a particular issue, then fine. I'll strive for a 63. But I'd like to be able to see "in my mind's eye" the actual appearance of the coin, rare or not. >>



But, Topstuf . . . you don't need a grade to see the coin "in your mind's eye" unless you're buying sight-unseen, which I doubt you do. You don't need a grade to assess the absolute condition of the coin with your own eyes. The only thing you need a grade for is to relate the condition of one coin to others that have also been graded. The Sheldon scale has always been about where a coin falls in relation to others for the purpose of determining its value. The whole purpose of grading is to rank coins.

So, in answer to Jay's question, I still say that the purpose of all grading is relative, even what he calls "straight grading."


Edited to clarify a point.

topstuf

<< <i>you don't need a grade to see the coin "in your mind's eye" unless you're buying sight-unseen, >>



Right you are. Except that I ...could.... do it with Bill Hall back in the 70's. Way before Sheldon was applied to everything, he was using 1 through 5 and I ...swear... it was like clockwork. He knew his coins and a 3 on the phone was a 3 in hand. It would be a 65 today.

I spose those days are gone for good.

bidask

<< <i>All you need to do to answer the question is to look at some early gold. By EITHER service.

It's obvious (to me at least) that for the past 2 years and a few months) the only rejection criteria for early gold has been holes or the use of sandpaper coarser than 80 grit.

Although that's an exaggeration, the early gold I've looked at in the past few years has been ludicrously graded in most cases. >>

As in overgraded or .....?

cladking

<< <i>

<< <i>you don't need a grade to see the coin "in your mind's eye" unless you're buying sight-unseen, >>



Right you are. Except that I ...could.... do it with Bill Hall back in the 70's. Way before Sheldon was applied to everything, he was using 1 through 5 and I ...swear... it was like clockwork. He knew his coins and a 3 on the phone was a 3 in hand. It would be a 65 today.

I spose those days are gone for good. >>



You still have the problem of describing the various attributes of strike, die condition, surfaces and
type of marking. In order to consistently grade on a relative scale or by price you have to not deal
in large percentages of coins in most series.

topstuf

<< <i>As in overgraded or .....? >>



I think mostly in "messed with." I see a goldie from a table or two away and sidle up to the table and see some scrubbed BRIGHT yellow thing with NO skin, tone, age, or luster, and it's in a "55" holder. Pre 1838 stuff.

At Santa Clara a couple shows back, I can't see how ANY of the Heraldic Eagle gold that ...I... saw could ever find a buyer outside some "investment package."

Very horrible surfaces.

topstuf

Well, cladking, that's the problem I have with "grading" I suppose. My thinking is that EVERY coin leaves the die as a 70. For maybe only microseconds, but still "exactly as it left the die" in every case.

Now the first tick takes it down a bit. The slide over the table a bit more. Etc, etc, etc, but....to me.... my opinion only, if a soft strike has had NO contact or friction (guess that's redundant) it is a 70.

Unless people want "70" to indicate "as perfect as it would be POSSIBLE to be" as a definition of ...state of preservation.

Don't matter much. We won't buy em if we don't like em. Sometimes.

53BKid

I hope PCGS reads this thread! It's clear many who've posted already don't like the idea of 'relative grading'. Saintguru, who I understand is neither a saint nor a guru, raises an excellent question. Off course much of grading is subjective. A coin's 'eye appeal' includes luster and supposedly that's factored in on most high valued coins. However, IMO, it would be impossible to factor in ranking without having the coins available for side by side comparison, particularly as the group of employees making the decisions change from time to time.

The idea that the rarity of a particular mintage enters into the equation really rubs me the wrong way. On a level playing field, these coins should be held to the same standards as common mintages. If not, grade inflation on the rarest coins ensues. While that might be good for the sellers, I don't know that it's good for others who collect that particular series. Here's something to think about: The PCGS registry weighting already gives major weighting to the rarity of mintages. So, if a particularly rare mintage coin receives an inflated grade, it compounds the series rating.

Everyone always says 'buy the coin, not the packaging'--but when 66s that are really just rare 64s by every other standard, it hurts all the other owners of 64 and lower.

LincolnCentMan

Do ALL coins in a series have to meet the same grading criteria...

No

...do mintages that were weak, highly circulated or extremely rare get graded RELATIVE to the handful of known examples?

Yes


There's another side of this, as well. That would be the very demanding grading that is applied to coins where the price jumps 4-10 fold in a single upgrade. A typical example in my arena would be a 1924-S MS64/65. The 64 sells for around 14K, while a MS65 would likely sell for ~150K these days? How hard is it to get a (great [add your coin]) MS64 upgraded to an MS65, just as an example? I think the coin must be a 65.5+ to get upgraded.

Take heart, in the end, the two highest bidders will determine the price. If it's a crappy coin, the hammer will reflect it.

-David

coinkat

I tend to believe there is straight grading when distinguishing Full Bands, Full Head or Full Steps etc... either those features are fully struck and note worthy or they are not.

Beyond that, I think there is relative grading. Part of my view is predicated on the fact that grading has a subject component and that will not change. Lets look at Morgans for a moment because that seems to be a series many folks here can relate to. An 1881-s Morgan in 65 has to nice because there is a huge surviving population of well struck coins dripping with lustre. This date among the other early SF Morgans from 1879-82 are likely the finest examples available for the series. By contrast, look a 1904 Morgan and a coin of this date worthy of a 65 will still not look as attractive as an 1881-s. One must consider the strike and the quality of the coin produced by the mints each year of a series. Just my view from the cheap sets

saintguru

I'll weigh in.

I have seen a number of cases where rarities do appear to have been awarded a higher grade than similar coins of less rarity. I have also seen coins of rarity that were clearly, in my eye, worthy of a higher grade.

It would apper to me that many cornerstone "great grades" were laid in the first decade of garding and now it's very hard to match those grades for numerous reasons. Perhaps it's the fear of liability of overgrading a very expensive coin? I would hope that's not the case, but I've heard the argument. I don't buy it. Is it the case that graders do not want to give someone a windfall gain? I highly doubt too. There are many questions with no good answers.

The conundrum that I referred to is that I don't think there IS any consistent rule of thumb. Sometimes coins are given higher grades and sometimes they are given lower grades. Certainly I could pull out a few rare MS65 Saints, put them next to a nice common MS66 and anyone would say they are the same grade. And of course the opposite can be found as well (although not in MY set ) where a rare MS65 is no better than most MS64's.

So herein lies the "no waterproof" simple answer. Grading is still a subjective measure...even if by proxy of 3 out of 5 graders. It's not done by a computer or electron microscope. It's like looking for the Holy Grail...

Connecticoin

ttt, this deserves more than one page of posts.

Longacre

There are some great comments here, and I can see both sides of the argument. However, for the entire grading process to work and not collapse (although some may argue that the system has been broken for a while), we need straight grading. The grading standards should not change based on a coin's rarity or low population. Pricing from one level to the next should not factor into things either. In order to have consistency, each coin should be graded on its own merits.

Connecticoin

<< <i>There are some great comments here, and I can see both sides of the argument. However, for the entire grading process to work and not collapse (although some may argue that the system has been broken for a while), we need straight grading. The grading standards should not change based on a coin's rarity or low population. Pricing from one level to the next should not factor into things either. In order to have consistency, each coin should be graded on its own merits. >>



Longacre, in princple, I agree with you, but reality dictates otherwise. And regarding the sharp pricing breaks, the market reflects this reality, making the breaks even sharper, likely making the TPGs even MORE reluctant to award the higher grade on "liner" coins (thus creating the proverbial "vicious circle").

53BKid

Okay, so I have another question along these lines...do you think grading companies pay any kind of defference to the submissions of some high profile collectors and dealers, or strictly go by the coin?

coltgus

My experience with this was a 1926-S Saint MS64 PCGS. I bought it for $3800 a few years ago. It looked MS65 no problem but PCGS did not agree. At the time MS65 was $30,000+. Eventually I put it in a Heritage auction where it sold for $10,350.

bumanchu

However, IMO, it would be impossible to factor in ranking without having the coins available for side by side comparison, particularly as the group of employees making the decisions change from time to time.q]

You're right, but I can see it now......."In the Tenth Annual Coin Showdown, Collector A is Hoping that the group of grading expert assembled for today's competition will finally award best in class or Finest Known to his three prized coins that he is absolutely sure if the graders are sober this time, they will have to aggree that his really are the best in the competittion."

IHMO, the number of variables being considered in the "subjective grading" will always leave someone less than happy.

saintguru

<< <i>My experience with this was a 1926-S Saint MS64 PCGS. I bought it for $3800 a few years ago. It looked MS65 no problem but PCGS did not agree. At the time MS65 was $30,000+. Eventually I put it in a Heritage auction where it sold for $10,350. >>



The 1926-S' ALWAYS look good. They were very well struck. I had a few and thought they were MS65's as well. Now I have one and it hasn't appreciated in 3 years.

IGWT

An earlier thread brought this one to mind.

Walmann

<< <i>Grading should be the same for all issues. No relative grading. If no coins exist that are good enough to merit a certain grade, too bad.
I've always felt that weakly struck coins should be downgraded to reflect the level of detail they exhibit, regardless of the level of wear. >>





They really shouldn't grade differently for relatives anyway.

MrEureka

Ultimately, the grading policy doesn't matter. A TPG can set any policy it likes, as long as it's consistently implemented.