the question is, what is the worst thing to collectors: a sliding grading scale over the years, or blatant overgrading the first time?
It's all really about the same. Only a pendejo would buy an overgraded coin -- and there are plenty of them out there, apparently. The sliding scale over the years means that if you hold the coin for more than a few years, you should get it regraded before its sale. Both items mean the 'standards' lack integrity.
I've seen plenty of liner coins that could go 4 or 5, others which could go 5 or 6, and if you wanted to submit them 10 times you'd probably get your upgrade, eventually. However, a jump from a 4 to a 7 is unacceptable in my book under any circumstances.
Likewise, grading a coin with rub as uncirculated is equally unacceptable. I'd rather a coin be graded correctly as an AU 58 and sell for a premium over an ugly coin CORRECTLY graded as MS 62 any day.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>I guess the bottomline is if I were a NGC grader I wouldn't be thinking that I would getting free drinks by telling a bunch of collectors at a bar because it obviously means crap to be a NGC grader these days if these is their by product. >>
continue believing this type of gradeflation is the byproduct of only one grading service, and your naive nature will have you buying overgraded crap based on Kool-Aid drinking and a blind faith to buying plastic. Anyone that has read this forum for any amount of time, or seen the offerings out there by the top TPGs will know that this mess is not relagated to only one of the 'Big 2'.
Anyone who believes standards don't change over time and that grading is very subjective ought to find another hobby. That coin doesn't do much for me regardless of the grade.
<< <i>Anyone who believes standards don't change over time and that grading is very subjective ought to find another hobby. That coin doesn't do much for me regardless of the grade. >>
Mike, if standards change that much over time, maybe those who allow the changes ought to get out of the business and leave our hobby alone..... regardless of this particular coin.
Two sides you read too much into my response. Someone posted earlier that grading standards shouldn't change over time ergo my response. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with it, the fact is the market dictates standards, not individuals.
Mike, I know that the "eye appeal" factor that TDN previously alluded to has a profound impact on grading coins, but man... 3 grade points is really a lot.
TDN said: I disagree - because of the time involved. It's well known that standards have changed dramatically since the late 1980/early 1990's. Eye appeal is so much more a factor now ... and the upper end of the grading spectrum utilized so much more often.
I disagree with the second part of this statement. Eye appeal is only "much more of a factor" at NGC, where nicely toned coins with horrible scratches, pock marks and abrasions easily visible under magnification are routinely overgraded. NGC also routinely hands out the "super-grades" (MS66 to MS69) based on eye appeal. Just study proof seated dollars certified by both services, for example. PCGS has adhered more closely to a standard based on technical aspects such as wear, surfaces, strike and luster. The ANA grading standards were not intended to be "market grading" where the numerical grade is an afterthought based on market pricing. NGC, however, seems to practice it that way. One of the reasons ALL of my coins are in PCGS holders is that I am continually outraged at overgraded coins that I see in NGC holders.
A good example was the 1896-O quarter NGC MS67 that realized a stunning $80,000+ at the Heritage ANA Platinum Night auction. Yes, the coin was pretty at arm's length, with lovely toning. But under magnification, the portrait was loaded with pock marks and scratches. That coin would not even have been a 66 at PCGS.
"Standards" are not supposed to change ... that's the whole point. "Standards" are not supposed to be overly subjective - as would be the case, for example, if they were based on eye appeal. We don't all agree on eye appeal. I think dipped white & conserved 19th century coins are often ugly and unnatural. I think my toned Morgans are original and beautiful. Some dealers think my toned Morgans are worthless, overpriced, unmarketable, and unworthy. Chacun à son goût. But grading is NOT supposed to be merely a matter of personal opinion.
<< <i>TDN said: I disagree - because of the time involved. It's well known that standards have changed dramatically since the late 1980/early 1990's. Eye appeal is so much more a factor now ... and the upper end of the grading spectrum utilized so much more often.
I disagree with the second part of this statement. Eye appeal is only "much more of a factor" at NGC, where nicely toned coins with horrible scratches, pock marks and abrasions easily visible under magnification are routinely overgraded. NGC also routinely hands out the "super-grades" (MS66 to MS69) based on eye appeal. Just study proof seated dollars certified by both services, for example. PCGS has adhered more closely to a standard based on technical aspects such as wear, surfaces, strike and luster. The ANA grading standards were not intended to be "market grading" where the numerical grade is an afterthought based on market pricing. NGC, however, seems to practice it that way. One of the reasons ALL of my coins are in PCGS holders is that I am continually outraged at overgraded coins that I see in NGC holders.
A good example was the 1896-O quarter NGC MS67 that realized a stunning $80,000+ at the Heritage ANA Platinum Night auction. Yes, the coin was pretty at arm's length, with lovely toning. But under magnification, the portrait was loaded with pock marks and scratches. That coin would not even have been a 66 at PCGS.
"Standards" are not supposed to change ... that's the whole point. "Standards" are not supposed to be overly subjective - as would be the case, for example, if they were based on eye appeal. We don't all agree on eye appeal. I think dipped white & conserved 19th century coins are often ugly and unnatural. I think my toned Morgans are original and beautiful. Some dealers think my toned Morgans are worthless, overpriced, unmarketable, and unworthy. Chacun à son goût. But grading is NOT supposed to be merely a matter of personal opinion.
Best, Sunnywood >>
"eye appeal", to include toning/strike/luster/et cetera is an issue that have allowed all of the major TPGs shift their grading a bit over the years to a more "market grading" philosophy. I think they were responding to a wider collector base, and also being able to make more money on resubmissions to make their balance sheet more attractive to investors. Whatever the cause, I think it is a problem that both of the 'Big 2' have a hand in.
To me, i have the opposite impression: I have somewhat recently crossed my Eliasberg world coins from PCGS to NGC for the same reasons you noted. I feel that the PCGS grades were "gifts", given as a result of the coins having been owned by Mr. Eliasberg. That didn't set well with me, and I crossed them over. All but two took a one point hit, and i'm fine with that as they will not be leaving my collection anyway. Two of these PCGS coins didn't have the proper attribution either, something I also found hard to swallow. I rarely have that problem with NGC, so that was the basis for my decision. I remember reading recently on this forum (maybe it was even one of your posts?) that a person would rather have a correctly graded coin, and properly attributed, than the same coin graded higher in a competitor's slab that didn't deserve the grade. I tend to agree with this sentiment.
I have seen plenty of type coins get (imo) a one point bump from both first tier services because of their beautiful toning. I am talking about everything from, and including, Capped Bust Dimes, Quarters, and Halves through their Seated equivalents. I would also add some Seated $s and Buffalo Nickels into this statement.
This has not been the case with Barber coins which are business strikes.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Might add that it's very unusual for a coin of that vintage to naturally tone like this one has (toned). I would have someone whom I think is an expert in the NT vs. AT matter look at it before considering purchasing it at any grade in the first place.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Could we all quit acting like grading standards are objective and not subjective. NO two coins exist that are exactly alike er well maybe if you searched forever you could find two that are. So in the meantime we have to shove all of them into a 70 point grading scale. Do you have some instrument that accurately measures eye appeal, the amount of luster, how deep a strike is, of course we don't. Do we know exactly how every die was made so we can measure if that particular die created a full strike or not? Do we have a rainbowomometer to measure color? Do we have definitive guidelines on how long and how deep a hit is or how much we should deduct for it? At best the ANA standards are a good guideline.
Either some of us have to much money invested in coins or are to close to the hobby and as a result make claims like the one above that standards aren't subjective and also subject to market tastes. This coin grading not life and death.
Mike, I agree with much of what you wrote, but AT is a big deal to me, and some of the best out there get fooled by it. There are plenty of expensive slabbed coins which have been artificially toned. Most people don't care because they're 'pretty.' Others can't tell the difference.
I know a guy who as far as I am concerned, is the best out there when it comes to spotting this sort of thing. A coin as old as this one isn't supposed to look like the image I see on my computer.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Got bogged down in semantics of grading vs market grading. Too bad. I'm with Sunnywood, technical grading can't change that much.
My simplistic analysis of the title alone: went from 64 to 65, from 65 to 66, from 66 to 67, then to 67 star. I know it didn't stop at those grades, but those are the hoops between 64 and 67 star. That is ludicrous.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Comments
It's all really about the same. Only a pendejo would buy an overgraded coin -- and there are plenty of them out there, apparently. The sliding scale over the years means that if you hold the coin for more than a few years, you should get it regraded before its sale. Both items mean the 'standards' lack integrity.
I've seen plenty of liner coins that could go 4 or 5, others which could go 5 or 6, and if you wanted to submit them 10 times you'd probably get your upgrade, eventually. However, a jump from a 4 to a 7 is unacceptable in my book under any circumstances.
Likewise, grading a coin with rub as uncirculated is equally unacceptable. I'd rather a coin be graded correctly as an AU 58 and sell for a premium over an ugly coin CORRECTLY graded as MS 62 any day.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I guess ACG had it right the whole time
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
that goes beyond the realm of funny into the land of reality.
<< <i>I guess the bottomline is if I were a NGC grader I wouldn't be thinking that I would getting free drinks by telling a bunch of collectors at a bar because it obviously means crap to be a NGC grader these days if these is their by product. >>
continue believing this type of gradeflation is the byproduct of only one grading service, and your naive nature will have you buying overgraded crap based on Kool-Aid drinking and a blind faith to buying plastic. Anyone that has read this forum for any amount of time, or seen the offerings out there by the top TPGs will know that this mess is not relagated to only one of the 'Big 2'.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>So what's the correct grade? >>
Andy, that's irrelevant.
<< <i>
<< <i>So what's the correct grade? >>
Andy, that's irrelevant. >>
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Anyone who believes standards don't change over time and that grading is very subjective ought to find another hobby. That coin doesn't do much for me regardless of the grade. >>
Mike, if standards change that much over time, maybe those who allow the changes ought to get out of the business and leave our hobby alone..... regardless of this particular coin.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Joe
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Well I just got to tell yah that NGC is far worse than PCGS when it comes to this, and ANACS is far worse than NGC and so and so on. >>
Far worse at what? Inconsistency? Handle enough coins and you'll find that there is no clear winner in that race.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I avoid such coins even if I like the looks of them. >>
I was with you until I got to this point.
I disagree with the second part of this statement. Eye appeal is only "much more of a factor" at NGC, where nicely toned coins with horrible scratches, pock marks and abrasions easily visible under magnification are routinely overgraded. NGC also routinely hands out the "super-grades" (MS66 to MS69) based on eye appeal. Just study proof seated dollars certified by both services, for example. PCGS has adhered more closely to a standard based on technical aspects such as wear, surfaces, strike and luster. The ANA grading standards were not intended to be "market grading" where the numerical grade is an afterthought based on market pricing. NGC, however, seems to practice it that way. One of the reasons ALL of my coins are in PCGS holders is that I am continually outraged at overgraded coins that I see in NGC holders.
A good example was the 1896-O quarter NGC MS67 that realized a stunning $80,000+ at the Heritage ANA Platinum Night auction. Yes, the coin was pretty at arm's length, with lovely toning. But under magnification, the portrait was loaded with pock marks and scratches. That coin would not even have been a 66 at PCGS.
"Standards" are not supposed to change ... that's the whole point. "Standards" are not supposed to be overly subjective - as would be the case, for example, if they were based on eye appeal. We don't all agree on eye appeal. I think dipped white & conserved 19th century coins are often ugly and unnatural. I think my toned Morgans are original and beautiful. Some dealers think my toned Morgans are worthless, overpriced, unmarketable, and unworthy. Chacun à son goût. But grading is NOT supposed to be merely a matter of personal opinion.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>TDN said: I disagree - because of the time involved. It's well known that standards have changed dramatically since the late 1980/early 1990's. Eye appeal is so much more a factor now ... and the upper end of the grading spectrum utilized so much more often.
I disagree with the second part of this statement. Eye appeal is only "much more of a factor" at NGC, where nicely toned coins with horrible scratches, pock marks and abrasions easily visible under magnification are routinely overgraded. NGC also routinely hands out the "super-grades" (MS66 to MS69) based on eye appeal. Just study proof seated dollars certified by both services, for example. PCGS has adhered more closely to a standard based on technical aspects such as wear, surfaces, strike and luster. The ANA grading standards were not intended to be "market grading" where the numerical grade is an afterthought based on market pricing. NGC, however, seems to practice it that way. One of the reasons ALL of my coins are in PCGS holders is that I am continually outraged at overgraded coins that I see in NGC holders.
A good example was the 1896-O quarter NGC MS67 that realized a stunning $80,000+ at the Heritage ANA Platinum Night auction. Yes, the coin was pretty at arm's length, with lovely toning. But under magnification, the portrait was loaded with pock marks and scratches. That coin would not even have been a 66 at PCGS.
"Standards" are not supposed to change ... that's the whole point. "Standards" are not supposed to be overly subjective - as would be the case, for example, if they were based on eye appeal. We don't all agree on eye appeal. I think dipped white & conserved 19th century coins are often ugly and unnatural. I think my toned Morgans are original and beautiful. Some dealers think my toned Morgans are worthless, overpriced, unmarketable, and unworthy. Chacun à son goût. But grading is NOT supposed to be merely a matter of personal opinion.
Best,
Sunnywood >>
"eye appeal", to include toning/strike/luster/et cetera is an issue that have allowed all of the major TPGs shift their grading a bit over the years to a more "market grading" philosophy. I think they were responding to a wider collector base, and also being able to make more money on resubmissions to make their balance sheet more attractive to investors. Whatever the cause, I think it is a problem that both of the 'Big 2' have a hand in.
To me, i have the opposite impression: I have somewhat recently crossed my Eliasberg world coins from PCGS to NGC for the same reasons you noted. I feel that the PCGS grades were "gifts", given as a result of the coins having been owned by Mr. Eliasberg. That didn't set well with me, and I crossed them over. All but two took a one point hit, and i'm fine with that as they will not be leaving my collection anyway. Two of these PCGS coins didn't have the proper attribution either, something I also found hard to swallow. I rarely have that problem with NGC, so that was the basis for my decision. I remember reading recently on this forum (maybe it was even one of your posts?) that a person would rather have a correctly graded coin, and properly attributed, than the same coin graded higher in a competitor's slab that didn't deserve the grade. I tend to agree with this sentiment.
This has not been the case with Barber coins which are business strikes.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Either some of us have to much money invested in coins or are to close to the hobby and as a result make claims like the one above that standards aren't subjective and also subject to market tastes. This coin grading not life and death.
I know a guy who as far as I am concerned, is the best out there when it comes to spotting this sort of thing. A coin as old as this one isn't supposed to look like the image I see on my computer.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
My simplistic analysis of the title alone: went from 64 to 65, from 65 to 66, from 66 to 67, then to 67 star. I know it didn't stop at those grades, but those are the hoops between 64 and 67 star. That is ludicrous.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."