PCGS Grading Set

Goldbully

I look forward to seeing this set.



Up Close ‘n’ Personal with the PCGS Grading Set

- October 3, 2007

Collectors and dealers took advantage of the debut exhibition to personally examine highlights of the Professional Coin Grading Service Grading Set during the recent September 2007 Long Beach Coin, Stamp and Collectibles Expo.

“I had an enjoyable time sitting down with some of the attendees to explain the subtleties of grading and why one coin was better than another,” said Ron Guth, President of PCGS, a division of Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT).

“Based on the feedback I received from people who viewed the Grading Set, the most popular coins were counterfeits, altered and problem coins. Most people get a quick grasp on how to grade a coin based on the design details, but they’re hungry to learn about the sometimes troublesome nuances of cleaning, artificial color, authenticity and other areas that require a higher level of expertise.”

PCGS Grading Set coins displayed in Long Beach included multiple examples of all grades from About Good-3 to Mint State-67 for many major U.S. coin series; displays of natural and artificial toning, altered coins, and toned coins depicting positive or negative eye appeal. Examples of counterfeit and altered specimens included a 1797 half dollar, 1927-D Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle, Colonial, pattern and commemorative coins

The complete set used as a reference by PCGS graders has about 1,000 coins, and future exhibits of set highlights are being planned.

“We are in the process of greatly expanding the grading set. When the comprehensive expansion is finished in the next six to twelve months there will be thousands of coins,” said David Hall, PCGS Founder and President of Collectors Universe.


PCGS LINK

Keleum

Do you know the plans for putting these images on-line? While I know it may be problematic, the counterfeits, fakes and descriptions of them would help me know what to look for also.

Colorfulcoins

Saw it at Long Beach show last week...was pretty cool.

yspsales

Thread bump...

Does PCGS still keep a grading set?

Does anyone make there own grading set?

If it was once good for them, I have always been of the opinion it would be even better for collectors.

Given the rise of CAC beans, would you build a grading set on PCGS standards or CAC beans standards?

Being an average collector, geographically isolated, and with only a few shows to attend, I don't have never ending supply of coins or coin shows to hone my skills.

I guess an arguement can be made to just buy the beans, but part of the fun is making your own grade and understanding the why....

Sold off my Buff Nickel grading set and thinking of a Lincoln Wheat and Memorial cent set.

pocketpiececommems

I like grading sets made up of the same dates if possible. My grading set is of the circ Lafayette Dollars. I’ve been working on the circ 93 Columbians

Davidk7

@yspsales said:
Thread bump...

Does PCGS still keep a grading set?

Does anyone make there own grading set?

If it was once good for them, I have always been of the opinion it would be even better for collectors.

Given the rise of CAC beans, would you build a grading set on PCGS standards or CAC beans standards?

Being an average collector, geographically isolated, and with only a few shows to attend, I don't have never ending supply of coins or coin shows to hone my skills.

I guess an arguement can be made to just buy the beans, but part of the fun is making your own grade and understanding the why....

Sold off my Buff Nickel grading set and thinking of a Lincoln Wheat and Memorial cent set.

Yes, PCGS has a grading set.

Yes, people make their own (usually for a series)

You can hone your grading skills on mycollect.com, there is a 'Guess the Grade' section with 30k+ photos of GC's coins post Phil.

BStrauss3

No, PCGS does not have a grading set any more, they sold it off several years ago. The coins occasionally cross - look for the G#### on the label.

coinbuf

No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Davidk7

By PCGS grading set, is everyone referring to the set of coins that the graders reference to maintain their grading standards?

As of Jan 2024, I am sure they have one, based on my discussion with someone important at PCGS.

DoubleEagle59

My own personal experience as a coin collector for over 50 years and a diamond grader for approx. 30 years, leads me to the conclusion that creating a coin grading set will not simplify or explain how a coin is graded.

My main reason for this, is the fact that there are no defining borders or 'fence posts' between grades.

In plain terms, the highest ms65, is the lowest ms66.

If we assume this to be true, then how does one create a grading set?

Ike1964

I am a buyer of coins from the PCGS Grading Set. If you have any of these coins for sale, please PM me. Thanks.

ProofCollection

@coinbuf said:
No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Wouldn't it better serve its purpose if all coins were at the exact midpoint of each grade (to the extend possible), rather than at the top half?

Davidk7

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:
No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Wouldn't it better serve its purpose if all coins were at the exact midpoint of each grade (to the extend possible), rather than at the top half?

The coins in the grading set that are assembled by PCGS and are considered to be the "perfect example" for the grade. I guess you can call it a midpoint, yeah.

Overdate

Until a few years ago, the theoretical midpoint for an MS65 would be exactly between 65.00 and 65.99. Now that we have "plus" grades, what would be the midpoints for plus vs. non-plus examples? (And do we need "minus" grades, like they give out in school?)

4Redisin

I thought members wrote that there is no longer an in-house PCGS Grading Set. In my opinion, there is no need for actual coins anymore. All that is needed are images. PCGS Photograde is a good start (I use it along with grading guides); however, it needs lots of work and there will never be a perfect grading set in our lifetimes because of the way coins circulate - often with almost a full grade difference between sides. There is a 1795 half Dime discussion that makes my point. The edges of the coin are virtually worn away while the centers are practically VG. A TPGS assigned the grade of AG to the coin. That's nuts! Where is the "art" in that?

In my opinion, someone will put out a better set that covers perhaps five or more different images between the top and bottom of a single grade. I hate it when a coin does not fit the images - especially when the higher graded image is actually worse than the one below it. A company like Heritage has enough auction images to produce a great guide but what's the point. The top wants to keep the bottom guessing.
.

shish

Until a grading service advertises that they have and use grading sets and provide some type of details regarding those sets I am going to assume that they don't have grading sets.

The following statement is very naive at best. "In my opinion, there is no need for actual coins anymore. All that is needed are images."

CAC has advertised that they have begun and plan to continue building grading sets, they have released some details about goals for these sets. I was told that they plan to display a grading set at the FUN show. I plan to visit their table and check it out.

coinbuf

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:
No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Wouldn't it better serve its purpose if all coins were at the exact midpoint of each grade (to the extend possible), rather than at the top half?

In a perfect world yes, but this is far from a perfect world and coin grading has no standards so defining an exact midpoint is impossible. If you show the same 10 coins to ten graders or very knowledgeable dealers/collectors you will likely get a consensus of a grade for most, but if you try and pin it down to an exact mid point of that grade then you are more likely to have ten different points.

I would, as I said, use CAC coins because those are graded the closest to the ANA standard that I learned, thus I can eliminate all the market grading and coins that have been gradeflated from my grading set.

yspsales

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:
No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Wouldn't it better serve its purpose if all coins were at the exact midpoint of each grade (to the extend possible), rather than at the top half?

In a perfect world yes, but this is far from a perfect world and coin grading has no standards so defining an exact midpoint is impossible. If you show the same 10 coins to ten graders or very knowledgeable dealers/collectors you will likely get a consensus of a grade for most, but if you try and pin it down to an exact mid point of that grade then you are more likely to have ten different points.

I would, as I said, use CAC coins because those are graded the closest to the ANA standard that I learned, thus I can eliminate all the market grading and coins that have been gradeflated from my grading set.

I am leaning this way as sort of a baseline.

Never really cared about CAC as I was sending raw moderns and proofs to PCGS.

Stupid question... Are similar date/MM coins in PCGS/CAC the same as CACG with a bean?

ProofCollection

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:
No PCGS no longer has a grading set, it was sold off pre covid if I remember correctly. Grading sets are only useful if the coins in the set are accurately graded. The question is do you want a grading set that reflects real grading or one that uses market graded coins. I don't own a grading set, but if I were to do one, I would choose CAC beaned or CACG coins as those are going to be in the top half of the grade a very high percentage of the time.

Wouldn't it better serve its purpose if all coins were at the exact midpoint of each grade (to the extend possible), rather than at the top half?

In a perfect world yes, but this is far from a perfect world and coin grading has no standards so defining an exact midpoint is impossible. If you show the same 10 coins to ten graders or very knowledgeable dealers/collectors you will likely get a consensus of a grade for most, but if you try and pin it down to an exact mid point of that grade then you are more likely to have ten different points.

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

I would, as I said, use CAC coins because those are graded the closest to the ANA standard that I learned, thus I can eliminate all the market grading and coins that have been gradeflated from my grading set.

As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

coinbuf

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

coinbuf

@yspsales said:
Stupid question... Are similar date/MM coins in PCGS/CAC the same as CACG with a bean?

Not stupid, yes it is generally accepted that a PCGS/NGC graded coin with a CAC green bean is equivalent to a CACG coin of the same grade. The caveat here is with + grades as CAC does not take the + into account when evaluating for a bean. So a PCGS/NGC + graded coin with a green bean may not be equivalent (i.e. cross with the plus) to CACG.

4Redisin

@shish said:
Until a grading service advertises that they have and use grading sets and provide some type of details regarding those sets I am going to assume that they don't have grading sets.

The following statement is very naive at best. "In my opinion, there is no need for actual coins anymore. All that is needed are images."

I may be naive; but I find it very hard to believe that professional graders making $$$,$$$ per year get up from their desk to look at a grading set that was so important that it is no longer at the office!!! I find my three grading guides + PCGS Potograde helpful but I'll never reach the level of a successful professional dealer or finalizer. I've never seen or heard of one of them pulling a grading guide out; but I don't work at PCGS. I don't expect any former grader to tell us how many times a day they used the grading set either.

Furthermore, everyone who is not as naive as me. must know that coins in a grading set that was built in the 1980's would be virtually worthless for anything in 2025 without stickers covering their original grades!

Additionally, the fact that a coin graded MS-65 by any TPGS (except CACG) can fit in a range of
MS-64.9,65.0,65.1,65.2...65.9, and 66.0 makes my suggestion of a much more detailed set (images would work) extremely naive.

BStrauss3

1. You would be surprised, the salary for junior graders is not all that high.
   https://www.indeed.com/q-coin-grading-jobs.html?vjk=b7aebddf40716fb8
2. They are expected to have the knowledge, but if there is a question, they consult with senior staff and other resources.
3. Coins are reviewed again by a "finalizer" before being released for shipment.

ProofCollection

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

4Redisin

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

Many times, I for one cannot find the problem even when the label says: "scratched or even "cleaned" SO I AM NO FAN OF PROBLEM COINS OF ANY KIND BEING "MARKET ACCEPTABLE." sorry, I hit the cap lock key. Anyway, I assure you that every time I have sold a coin the dealer finds a problem with it - often even slabs. I wish the TPGS's would be more strict.

shish

"I may be naive; but I find it very hard to believe that professional graders making $$$,$$$ per year get up from their desk to look at a grading set that was so important that it is no longer at the office!!!"

I stand by my statement. "The following statement is very naive at best. "In my opinion, there is no need for actual coins anymore. All that is needed are images."

Grading sets provide an important reference that graders use to recalibrate regardless of how much they make.

"I've never seen or heard of one of them pulling a grading guide out; but I don't work at PCGS. I don't expect any former grader to tell us how many times a day they used the grading set either."

Regardless of your inexperience it's not about how many times a day graders use the grading set.

"Furthermore, everyone who is not as naive as me. must know that coins in a grading set that was built in the 1980's would be virtually worthless for anything in 2025 without stickers covering their original grades!"

You're correct that gradeflation exists, that does not mean that all the coins in a grading set built in the 80's are virtually worthless today. The coins could be regraded, the grading set can be updated at any time.

"Additionally, the fact that a coin graded MS-65 by any TPGS (except CACG) can fit in a range of MS-64.9,65.0,65.1,65.2...65.9, and 66.0 makes my suggestion of a much more detailed set (images would work) extremely naive."

Fortunately the TPG's are not using the factional grading scale you refer to, with one exception, NGC is using 10th's on modern coins. We have more than enough grades already, adding tenth's is not necessary and one can make a strong argument that it's difficult enough to reach a consensus with our current grading scale.

Please keep an open mind and increase your numismatic knowledge before making broad statements on subjects you have very little experience with.

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

"Closest to the ANA"? Where it's stated that MS-60 and above have NO trace of wear? Yeah, that definitely sounds like PCGS and not CAC,,,,

First of all, why would that even matter and how is it relevant today?

"I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades"

NOBODY is "artificially lowering grades, for the 784th time. Go talk to one of the CACG graders at the show, because you're determined not to listen to anyone here, no matter how many times it's been explained (ad nausuem).

Goodness, can't you just say that you like PCGS' grading better, instead of trying to use these convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify your reasoning? The amount of wasted time people have spent trying to get this across immeasurable at this point. Just collect whatever you want and submit wherever you want, but please stop spewing misinformation stated as fact. The only time a grade is "artificially lowered" is when a coin is net graded, which happens at every service. This will be my only comment about this on this thread.

PeakRarities

I don't believe PCGS uses grading sets anymore, but I do know that the graders have a computer screen and often times will look at other examples in the database the way that we use photo grade,

4Redisin

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

"Closest to the ANA"? Where it's stated that MS-60 and above have NO trace of wear? Yeah, that definitely sounds like PCGS and not CAC,,,,

First of all, why would that even matter and how is it relevant today?

"I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades"

NOBODY is "artificially lowering grades, for the 784th time. Go talk to one of the CACG graders at the show, because you're determined not to listen to anyone here, no matter how many times it's been explained (ad nausuem).

Goodness, can't you just say that you like PCGS' grading better, instead of trying to use these convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify your reasoning? The amount of wasted time people have spent trying to get this across immeasurable at this point. Just collect whatever you want and submit wherever you want, but please stop spewing misinformation stated as fact. The only time a grade is "artificially lowered" is when a coin is net graded, which happens at every service. This will be my only comment about this on this thread.

@shish

I will not comment anymore with you as it seems to get both old and new members banned on this forum.

@PeakRarities

I don't know if they do it but as I recall, in the beginning on the CAC forum, they said low MS-65's would be down graded to 64 or 64+ (I don't remember which) but they did say some coins from other services would be downgraded.

PeakRarities

@4Redisin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

"Closest to the ANA"? Where it's stated that MS-60 and above have NO trace of wear? Yeah, that definitely sounds like PCGS and not CAC,,,,

First of all, why would that even matter and how is it relevant today?

"I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades"

NOBODY is "artificially lowering grades, for the 784th time. Go talk to one of the CACG graders at the show, because you're determined not to listen to anyone here, no matter how many times it's been explained (ad nausuem).

Goodness, can't you just say that you like PCGS' grading better, instead of trying to use these convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify your reasoning? The amount of wasted time people have spent trying to get this across immeasurable at this point. Just collect whatever you want and submit wherever you want, but please stop spewing misinformation stated as fact. The only time a grade is "artificially lowered" is when a coin is net graded, which happens at every service. This will be my only comment about this on this thread.

@shish

I will not comment anymore with you as it seems to get both old and new members banned on this forum.

@PeakRarities

I don't know if they do it but as I recall, in the beginning on the CAC forum, they said low MS-65's would be down graded to 64 or 64+ (I don't remember which) but they did say some coins from other services would be downgraded.

It's a gentle way to explain that many low end PCGS 65s are over-graded in their opinion. They don't look at the coin and say "Ahhh its a 65 but its only a 65 C so were gonna give it a 64+". They say "Ehhh doesn't quite make 65 but its almost there, well go 64+".

yspsales

I am sure a grader looking at hundreds of Morgan's each day doesn't need a crutch. But how many series do they span with proficient skills.

The average collector doesn't see in hand hundreds of Morgan's in a year. Time away dulls the trained eye.

Lincoln cents and moderns are cheap and easier to locate in BU.

Not my favorites but allows me to play the grading game. Kinda like the goal of being the biggest fish in a small pond.

Just trying to build an affordable grading set and mimic the grading class I took.

Also, since it was brought up, problem coins notated in a TPG is another idea I have been thinking of collecting.

One day I might make it out west for the week long seminar. Until then I just trudge along.

Thanks for the feedback!

ProofCollection

@PeakRarities said:
"Closest to the ANA"? Where it's stated that MS-60 and above have NO trace of wear? Yeah, that definitely sounds like PCGS and not CAC,,,,

I know you said you wouldn't comment any more but I'd really like to dive into this and reconcile our disagreement if it's possible if you would entertain a reply. If not, I understand.

I was talking about standards and not the extent to which each TPG adheres to them. I do believe it's PCGS's standard to label all coins with wear as AU. CACG's standard is to ignore the ANA standard for low end ("C") material (as I'll show below). Aspiring to the standard, as PCGS does, is closer to adherence to a standard than a policy that eschews it for a large portion of the coin population.

First of all, why would that even matter and how is it relevant today?

"I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades"

NOBODY is "artificially lowering grades, for the 784th time. Go talk to one of the CACG graders at the show, because you're determined not to listen to anyone here, no matter how many times it's been explained (ad nausuem).

Goodness, can't you just say that you like PCGS' grading better, instead of trying to use these convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify your reasoning? The amount of wasted time people have spent trying to get this across immeasurable at this point. Just collect whatever you want and submit wherever you want, but please stop spewing misinformation stated as fact. The only time a grade is "artificially lowered" is when a coin is net graded, which happens at every service. This will be my only comment about this on this thread.

@PeakRarities said:
It's a gentle way to explain that many low end PCGS 65s are over-graded in their opinion. They don't look at the coin and say "Ahhh its a 65 but its only a 65 C so were gonna give it a 64+". They say "Ehhh doesn't quite make 65 but its almost there, well go 64+".

Is that conjecture or do you have a source for that?

I do like PCGS' grading better but I recognize that all of the top 4 TPGs have their own strong suits and fulfill a need in the market. The issue I have is what I feel are the misguided statements that CACG is the closest to the ANA standard or has the strictest standards when by definition, if a company substantially defies the standard, no matter how altruistic or valid the reason, the adherence cannot be considered "strict" or "close" and cannot compete in this regard with services that aspire to a mostly complete adherence.

Here is my so-called "convoluted mental gymnastics:" It gets really convoluted because I use John Albanese quotes and CAC sources a lot. Can you please provide a source for your assertion about being a "gentle way to explain that low end 65s are overgraded?" Because per this JA interviews, I believe overgraded coins would be "D" and "F" coins. It's very clear that "C" coins are properly graded.

Noted numismatic authority Maurice Rosen interviewed John Albanese. The following interview appeared in the Rosen Numismatic Advisory Newsletter (Vol. 33 No. 4) in May 2008.
https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/128456-an-interview-with-john-albanese-by-maurice-rosen/

MR: Besides the “A,” “B,” and “C” coins, we’ve seen what I describe as “D” and “F” coins, mistakes and horrible mistakes which lead us to wonder “What were they smoking when they holdered that coin.” I ask you, how did those coins get holdered in the first place?

>

JA: I wish I knew. I’ve already taken about 15 CAC labeled coins off the market that made me wonder how this happens. I think it’s just that graders are human. Try as we all do we’re not perfect. Clearly, you want to keep that to a minimum. We offer a buy-back guarantee. If I agree that the coin shouldn’t be labeled, I take it off the market, remove the label and sell it for a loss.

Then we get a solid discussion on "C" coins:

MR: Do you have any desire to one day start your own coin grading service?

>

JA: I really don’t, and even if I did, as I mentioned earlier, if a “C” coin came in it would have to be identified as being in its full numerical grade, not a point lower. I think the present services have established a nice baseline. Let’s remember also that most of the rare coins in existence have already been graded, so what would be the point? There would just be a lot of wasted plastic as people crack coins out of their holders. It would be very confusing. PCGS and NGC are already embedded in the market. Introducing CAC is confusing enough.

Here he states that a "C" coin would have to be identified as being in its full numerical grade, not a point lower. But we know CAC will not sticker "C" coins. Does this sound like he is saying the "C" coins are over-graded if he is adamant that they be identified in its full numerical grade? He is talking about the merits of a meeting a standard for a grade and not avoiding disparaging marks about the TPG or hurting any feelings here. JA is pretty clear that "C" coins are accurately graded, not a "gentle way" of describing an overgraded ("D" or "F") coin. This is reiterated by the FAQ:

From the CAC stickering FAQ: https://www.cacgrading.com/doc/stickering-frequently-asked-questions/

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.

From here: https://www.cacgrading.com/modern-coins we have this statement:

To this end, we have set out to apply the same stringent standards used originally in our Stickering service across all the coins we are now Grading, including our modern coins.

Using some "mental gymnastics" I derive the conclusion that if they will not sticker "C" coins, and making the logical assumption that the statement above about modern coin grading applies to all of their coin grading, and despite JA's quote from 2008 when he thought he would never start a grading service and that a "C" coin would "have to be identified as being in its full numerical grade, not a point lower," we can conclude that CACG is not actually slabbing "C" coins in their full numerical grade, thus overtly defying the standard. I tried to find a quote about not wanting "low end" material in their slabs but I couldn't track it down in a reasonable amount of time but I don't think anyone disputes hearing or seeing JA expressing that sentiment.

So if someone would like to make that case that "C" coins are being identified (slabbed) in their full numerical grade at CACG, or that "C" coins are indeed overgraded, I would definitely like to see the evidence or mental gymnastics used to draw that conclusion in opposition to the evidence above. I maintain my position because I cannot find any evidence to suggest that "C" coins are considered by CAC to be misgraded or overgraded, just that they wouldn't qualify for a sticker or a CACG slab of the same grade.

Edited to add: I am not entrenched in this position. I will go where the evidence takes me if you all can show me how you have come to alternate conclusions.

shish

"we can conclude that CACG is not actually slabbing "C" coins in their full numerical grade, thus overtly defying the standard."

You begin the sentence with the term we. You can conclude that, I do not.

Who's grading standard are you referring to? PCGS, ANA, or both?

It's really simple, CAC has their own grading standard, just like PCGS and NGC.

You are way over analyzing this.