Is it possible for a grading service to be too strict for its own good?
Prethen
Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭
If a service gets so tight, that what most collectors/dealers would consider a 65 goes into a 64 holder, aren't they hurting themselves also? Aren't their customers going to get frustrated with paying the price in terms of fees and time to get a lower grade in a holder than what they believe to be the market grade?
Actually, this goes a bit deeper. Is it possible the service(s) is sensitive to the lovely sticker market that's out there and would like to see all their holders get the best stickers possible? Therefore that 65 coin in a 64 holder will get a gold sticker now and really stand out.
Some of you will say "Who cares...it's just their opinion". I don't disagree with that except when you realize that many coins only trade at a decent market value when holdered by this/these service(s). I don't agree with why the market prizes this, but many times this is the case. One general example I can think of 1875-CC 20¢ pieces. Raw, these coins tend to trade for below their grade and only reach their "full potential" when in plastic. This is large part due to the spread between grades. This is a generality as I'm certain that there are many cases that this coin sells for nutty money even when raw.
The issue here may seem like a subtle one and one rife with controversy. Most of you know that I'm no big fan of "the holder". However, I do realize that the reality of the situation with rarer and higher value coins is that it's much easier to trade when holdered.
If you send your precious coins to get holdered (and their coins/series that you are very familiar with), it can be devastating to your investment if the service happens to be in "super tight mode". Yes, you could always try to sell the coin for a higher grade while in a lower grade holder (good luck with that - although I'm sure there are examples ready to be bragged about), break it out and sell it raw, or crack it out for regrade.
I have personally seen coins in recently undergraded holders that there seems to be no reasonable explanation as to why the opinion was set down as such. One devious thing comes to mind and that's the sticker market.
What do you guys think?
Actually, this goes a bit deeper. Is it possible the service(s) is sensitive to the lovely sticker market that's out there and would like to see all their holders get the best stickers possible? Therefore that 65 coin in a 64 holder will get a gold sticker now and really stand out.
Some of you will say "Who cares...it's just their opinion". I don't disagree with that except when you realize that many coins only trade at a decent market value when holdered by this/these service(s). I don't agree with why the market prizes this, but many times this is the case. One general example I can think of 1875-CC 20¢ pieces. Raw, these coins tend to trade for below their grade and only reach their "full potential" when in plastic. This is large part due to the spread between grades. This is a generality as I'm certain that there are many cases that this coin sells for nutty money even when raw.
The issue here may seem like a subtle one and one rife with controversy. Most of you know that I'm no big fan of "the holder". However, I do realize that the reality of the situation with rarer and higher value coins is that it's much easier to trade when holdered.
If you send your precious coins to get holdered (and their coins/series that you are very familiar with), it can be devastating to your investment if the service happens to be in "super tight mode". Yes, you could always try to sell the coin for a higher grade while in a lower grade holder (good luck with that - although I'm sure there are examples ready to be bragged about), break it out and sell it raw, or crack it out for regrade.
I have personally seen coins in recently undergraded holders that there seems to be no reasonable explanation as to why the opinion was set down as such. One devious thing comes to mind and that's the sticker market.
What do you guys think?
0
Comments
That's my take, anyway.
<< <i> Is it possible for a grading service to be too strict for its own good? >>
since it's never happened, do'nt lose sleep over it
K S
-Randy Newman
<< <i>Strict or lose is neither of the things I'd look for in a quality TPG. Accuracy and consistency would be the top two qualities in my opnion. >>
Exactly. At least you can count on NNC overgrading every time. The top grading companies go from strict to loose all the time. If you're going to change your standards, then announce it accordingly and change the style of holder.
.
.
.
Now do it 1,000 times over 10 years with no record of previous grade per post... and get it right every time please.
<< <i>
<< <i> Is it possible for a grading service to be too strict for its own good? >>
since it's never happened, do'nt lose sleep over it
K S >>
Some folks believe the old Hallmark was too strict and that strictness was a big factor in its demise. Being too strict means no one sends coins to that company. Especially for a new company or a small company, too strict means no business.
I have seen many a novice post about starting a new grading service that is very strict. The problem is, if that is the business model, word gets out, and no one submits. It would take a long time for the strictness to translate into higher prices, and it is likely the company goes under before that happens. It is much easier to cross the coin, than to get a retail buyer or auction bidders to believe that the new-company MS64 is worth as much as the PCGS MS65.
Based upon my submissions year to date, I would have to agree ... PCGS has clamped down enough to where even attempting to upgrade any of my registry sets at this time is pointless. Meanwhile, ICG remains consistant and accurate when it comes to the occasional world coin acquisition that I send in.
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
<< <i>The biggest problem I see is the inconsistency. There is always going to be some degree of inconsistency; it's human nature. However, the more you see examples of two coins of the same grade where one coin is clearly much better and examples where the coin with lower grade is clearly better than the one with the higher grade, the more one's confidence in the grading service is eroded. Over time, this has a cumulative effect. The more experience you have, the more you come to believe that it is a crapshoot and that you really have to rely on your own experience and/or that of a trusted expert.
That's my take, anyway. >>
Do you think that inconsistency might be reversed if the coins were graded one after the other on the same day instead of maybe months or years apart?
<< <i>If a service gets so tight, that what most collectors/dealers would consider a 65 goes into a 64 holder, aren't they hurting themselves also? Aren't their customers going to get frustrated with paying the price in terms of fees and time to get a lower grade in a holder than what they believe to be the market grade?
Actually, this goes a bit deeper. Is it possible the service(s) is sensitive to the lovely sticker market that's out there and would like to see all their holders get the best stickers possible? Therefore that 65 coin in a 64 holder will get a gold sticker now and really stand out.
I have personally seen coins in recently undergraded holders that there seems to be no reasonable explanation as to why the opinion was set down as such. One devious thing comes to mind and that's the sticker market.
What do you guys think? >>
If they are THAT sensitive to the sticker then why does just aboot every thread mentioning it get the boot? It might cause them to do a little extra diligence so that if the coins do get submitted to that "other" service at least they won't get rejected. Remember that CAC is not only about correctly graded, its about doctored stuff too.