Shifting grading standards. What is the largest swing in MS grades from a 1st tier TPG a coin has re

SanctionII

Has PCGS or NGC ever, on a regrade of one of their slabbed MS coins, increased or decreased the grade by 2 points or more (i.e. a 64 to a 66). How about a 3 point swing.

I suspect that for coins in the AU58 range, it is possible that a TPG could, on regrade, call the coin an MS and give it a 63 or 64 grade (or from 63 or 64 down to a 58), thereby giving a 5 or 6 point swing in grade based upon the conclusion of whether or not there is rub. This type of grade swing is much more understandable than one that is soley within the 60-70 scale.

Since I posed the question for MS coins, I might as well follow up with the same question for proof coins in the 60-70 range.

Your thoughts and comments please, including what you think of a 2 point or higher swing in grade for MS or Proof coins.

PawPaul

I think this is a great question to post ;

.......a 2 point swing would be surprising , and would make me very uncomfortable

RedTiger

The most famous example is one of the 1804 dollars. I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but someone will come along and say it.

Others have had multiple anecdotal stories about 3 or 4 point MS grading swings on coins they submitted, or bagged coins getting holdered, or AU coins going to MS and vice-versa.

Grade inflation is a natural out come from the TPG business model. If a person set up a theoretical game with the parameters of the business model, grades would naturally inch forward over the course of many years. Add in the strong power of greed, and it magnifies.

Bayard1908

<< <i>The most famous example is one of the 1804 dollars. I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but someone will come along and say it. >>



If I remember right, it went from 45 to 61.

Barndog

did the 1870-S half dime start as an AU coin and make its way to MS-64? Or something like that.

RedTiger

I found the 1804 reference, it is not an MS coin:

http://home.comcast.net/~reidgold/draped_busts/page_3.html
link

Two-thirds of the way down:
>>
The Adams-Carter coin is currently graded Proof-58 by PCGS, but in the past it was graded Proof-50 by NGC and before that Proof-45 by PCGS. To PCGS's own graders, the coin improved an astonishing 13 points in quality over time. PCGS contended that it graded the coin as it most recently did because previous graders didn't account for its weak strike. But Q. David Bowers, Walter Breen, and Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett had all graded it extremely fine as well. A considerably more likely explanation is that this coin is just another example of how the grading "standards" of the grading services are anything but consistent over time and how they treat rare coins or coins with provenance more leniently than other coins.

NGC recently engaged in two similar acts of blatant overgrading. It graded the Berg-Garrett specimen, a Class III 1804 dollar not pictured here, Proof-55. This is a whopping 15 points higher than everyone else had graded it. Q. David Bowers graded it EF-40 in his 1993 book Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia. Walter Breen graded it EF in his 1988 book Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett graded it extremely fine in their 1962 book The Fantastic 1804 Dollar. When it was last sold, in 1980 as part of the Garrett sale, it was also graded EF-40. Before NGC graded it Proof-55, ANACS had graded it, also EF-40.
>>

pursuitofliberty

I know of more than a few two pointers, and this one is long enough ago that it probably doesn't count, but;



In 1994 a friend of mine and I bought a small group of impressively toned MS61, MS62 and MS63 Seated Dimes
in old (fatty) NGC holders.

They were almost all common dates, but we felt that two of the 62's and one of the 63's were shot Gems. We
got two 64's and a 65 on the resubmit.

The 65 was formerly a 62.

The sad part of this story is we sold almost all the coins (I still have an 1888 in 61 that I saved for my oldest son) ...
and these are some of the very few coins I have serious regrets of selling.

vplite

I have read that most recently PCGS is in a "tightening mode". Does anyone have any first hand experience with recent submissions?

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>

<< <i>The most famous example is one of the 1804 dollars. I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but someone will come along and say it. >>



If I remember right, it went from 45 to 61. >>



The one that just sold? It's PR62.

If you're wondering, the piece actually does belong in a PR62 holder. It's not as much of a gift grade as many believe.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

In strictly MS grades, I've cracked out some 1880-S rattler Morgans from 62 that went MS65. I've cracked out a 64 that went 66, and heard of a rattler MS63 commem that upgraded to MS67. I've also heard a story of a CC Morgan that went from MS64 to MS68 (once a lot of ugly toning and residue was removed), but I'm not sure if that one is true. I've also heard of a coin doc who upgraded a 1901-S Barber Quarter from MS65 to MS67, but again, no confirmation on that one.

roadrunner

That 1901-s 25c upgrade sounds like the dipping out of the MS65 James Stack Specimen around 1988-89. I don't know if Renrob actually ever submitted that raw coin for slabbing prior to selling it but it did upgrade from 66 to 67 following the bath. The coin had been sold to the dipper for around $120K and was then flipped for approx $225-250K. That was a shame considering the coin had wonderfully original deep blue and green toning. It was a monster just as it was. But the penchant for dipped coins getting a higher grade lead that one to the Jewel luster. I wonder if the coin has toned back in splotches since that time?

I've had a couple of 2 point flips on seated coins in the 64 to 67 range. I've always seen a number of seated coins that were in holders as high as MS66 where the actual coin was at best MS64....and those coins have realized prices at the lower grade suggesting they were 2 pts too high.

I purchased a raw MS 1882 seated half in auction in 2002 and expected to get a MS66 grade on it. The coin was closer to 67 than 66. It came back MS65. On the next submission 1 month later it came back MS67. Ironically, neither grade was technically on the money imo though it was nice to get unburied from that original MS65 grade. 2 point swings are not impossible on coins that start out either PQ or low end for the grade.

roadrunner

Goldbully

My worst nightmare...........I had a NGC 1835 CBH NGC MS61 crossover to a PCGS AU55!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Needless to say, I will never cross at "any" grade ever again!!!!!!!

3 grade drop???????????? Absurd to say the least!!!!!!

scottgardener

There appears to be an unintentional consequence of the grading system that creates the appearance of corruption. I am sure it is accidental, but the effect is none-the-less there, and others a bit more emotionally charged seem less confident than I am regarding neutrality. The effect is as follows: The grading services are willing to re-grade coins already graded. If they re-grade them at a lower value than before, they leave them in their present holder. If they re-grade them higher, they remove the original holder and place them in a new one. The net effect is a gradual inflation of a coin's grade, but only if the service is used multiple times. The guarantee against down-grading previous values by the same service is almost certainly a protection against being hit with even bigger complaints and more of them. But, I have read complaints postulating that grading services were intentionally grading low with the hopes that coins would be resubmitted, and that they would be paid twice or more again to review the same coin.

However, the sheer number of submissions PCGS and NGC have would argue against this allegation. Put simply, they don't need the extra volume. They get quite enough work as is.

The real problem is the subjectivity of grading. Even with rigid standards published by the ANA and sets of reference coins used in the grading process, coins are subjected to a chaotic system and thus are highly individualized. Coupled with the way the human brain works; I'm sure that even the best experts would give the same coin one or two point differences of grade on different days, depending on the person's mood, the other coins they just graded moments earlier, how fresh or remote in memory various articles and seminars are, or whether or not a coffee maker is working.

I would not be surprised if we see one or two more companies trying to do the same thing CAC is doing; making a living agreeing or disagreeing with existing grades. That would have to be either the best job in the world or the worst.