Options
Lowering the grading standards for rare and key date coins
BillJones
Posts: 33,651 ✭✭✭✭✭
Concave rays Fugio cent
Yesterday one of our members started this string about a rare variety of a Fugio cent that caught his attention. I was disappointed with the fact that NGC graded this coin EF-40. That grade seemed to be totally based upon the sharpness grade, and totally ignored the fact that the coin is corroded. Why did NGC do this?
Years ago many dealers lowered their grading standards for key date and rare coins. To me this was totally unfair because the same standards should apply to all coins within a given series regardless of their rarity. One pays high prices for key dates and rarities because of their status within a series. It’s totally unfair to double up and lower the grading standards as well.
Has anyone else noticed other instances of this? I know I’ve seen them, but I would prefer to hold my fire in case this results in a more extended discussion.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
0
Comments
I'm not so sure the standards are lowered, but the availability of certain specimens is such, that the entities authenticating them are almost "forced" by the hands of the dealers to "recognize and net grade" those types of orbs you are referring to (ah, and probably for commercial reasons, not so much numismatic ).
Key dates that are rare or scarce are likely what allow concessions to be made, sidestepping logic. (availability issues). This may or may not confound those who are practical and definitive regarding grading standards. But I read your post and admire your ability to convey your message without a tirade.
Net grading a problematic piece is fine, but where does one draw the line ? If a coin is graded with a problem and the standards which would typically bodybag a coin does not apply , then there's a glitch in the system. And if we muddy the waters by not identifying issues on a coin, we destroy the fabric of the entire process when it comes to grading standards.
My thoughts going forward,
Joe
I found out that this called "chestnut grading," and it really angered me.
Later I did get that 1877 with the full "LIBERTY" for a Fine price, but that was after the Indian cent market collapsed and dealers were actually happy to sell them.
<< <i>I would rather see a key date holdered like that with it's flaws showing , than one that has been "conserved" in an attempt to hide the problems. >>
I agree with that point entirely. It's also great that we now have "genuine" holders for PCGS and regular looking holders for problem coins from NGC. A truly rare coin with problems deserves to be certified even if the service can't grade it. And it also should be in an attractive holder. I don't know about you, but I thought that that the old NCS holders were really ugly and did a lot to make much harder to sell the coin.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable.
<< <i>PCGS will net grade a coin if it is historical, raw or "important" enough and the problem is not to severe. This used to be written in PCGS grading standards.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable. >>
True, and I'm left with the thought:
"Hey Joe, there's always ANACS "
<< <i>Standards should be the same for all coins in a given series otherwise you dont have standards. Its the same thing when they lower the standards for "hoard" coins. Or CC Dollars or ... >>
.....Wells Fargo 1908 double eagles.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>PCGS will net grade a coin if it is historical, raw or "important" enough and the problem is not to severe. This used to be written in PCGS grading standards.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable. >>
I guess special coins get special grades.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
<< <i>Standards should be the same for all coins in a given series otherwise you dont have standards. Its the same thing when they lower the standards for "hoard" coins. Or CC Dollars or ... >>
The great thing about "standards" is that there are so many different ones to choose from!
...feeding this thread is like dancing in a mine field.
I sent in two liberty caps 1794 and 1795 one was pretty worn the other was some where in the 30 range. The 1795 came back graded AG3 and I know this coin had some small problems all the same it graded. The 1794 came back in a genuine slab code 94.
If you ask me the 1794 had less problems than the 1795 but
I think they graded the 1795 because it was such a low grade they expect it to have problems at that grade. I was prepaired for both coins not to grade but I thought if one did grade it would of been the 1794.
I wish all TPGs would do like ANACS and list the details grade and note the problems. They should even include explanations like weak strike when the grade is higher than the details seem to support. Otherwise it is hard to explain to people why an AU 50 1916 SLQ looks like a VF. As an aside, if most people believe strike is the most important element in the value of a coin, why are luster and wear taken more into account when grading a coin?
<< <i>
<< <i>I would rather see a key date holdered like that with it's flaws showing , than one that has been "conserved" in an attempt to hide the problems. >>
I agree with that point entirely. It's also great that we now have "genuine" holders for PCGS and regular looking holders for problem coins from NGC. A truly rare coin with problems deserves to be certified even if the service can't grade it. And it also should be in an attractive holder. I don't know about you, but I thought that that the old NCS holders were really ugly and did a lot to make much harder to sell the coin. >>
... both of you.