PCGS grading standards over the years, question for the experts..
Coin Finder
Posts: 7,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
Coin geeks like myself admittedly like to think they can grade as well as the experts. Personally I am about 50/50 when submitting to PCGS. However this does not mean I can grade, I just that I know what PCGS will put on the slab.
So my question is this: PCGS founders have said that the original OGH graded coins were fairly conservative and some do upgrade upon resubmission; what time in PCGS history do you think was the most liberal grading? What approximate years?
Are they more conservative now that in 1986?
Your thoughts are most welcome and thank you for your time..
So my question is this: PCGS founders have said that the original OGH graded coins were fairly conservative and some do upgrade upon resubmission; what time in PCGS history do you think was the most liberal grading? What approximate years?
Are they more conservative now that in 1986?
Your thoughts are most welcome and thank you for your time..
0
Comments
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>Coin geeks like myself admittedly like to think they can grade as well as the experts. Personally I am about 50/50 when submitting to PCGS. However this does not mean I can grade, I just that I know what PCGS will put on the slab.
So my question is this: PCGS founders have said that the original OGH graded coins were fairly conservative and some do upgrade upon resubmission; what time in PCGS history do you think was the most liberal grading? What approximate years?
Are they more conservative now that in 1986?
Your thoughts are most welcome and thank you for your time.. >>
Ooooh. 1980's. You mean around when GEM was a term reserved for MS67? When Choice was MS65? When MS63 was called Select? That is too confusing.
Eric
Most liberal years? Probably 2004-mid 2008 as the coin market went crazy. The market demanded graded coins. There was a ready outlet at a solid price for any coin regardless of how it was graded. That changed by the fall of 2008. I personally don't think that the standards in 2013 are all that much tighter (if any) from the 2004-2008 years. The tightest standards at PCGS were in 1986-1987 when they first came out. It took a great coin to get a MS65 grade. When NGC first came out in 1987 their standards were off the wall tough. I recall sending in a "PF67" 1904 half that I had bought from Jay Miller in 1983 for $5400. The coin was incredible. Imagine my anxiety when it came back PF65 from NGC in early 1988 (CDN value of $3000-$3500). I regraded it about 6 months later and it made PF66. I have zero doubts it is in a PF67 (or PF68) holder today. At that time, there was no way (for me) to get the PF66+ or even PF67 label that such a coin deserved. I never had a coin come back higher than MS66/PF66 in the 1980's and I submitted a hundred or more gem type coins during that period. There were some very worthy coins in that group too. The coins that did grade MS66/PF66 were awesome and about the finest available on the market. Back then, a PF67 coin had to be essentially perfect. While they did give out PF68's on some Barbers and Seated coins, it was a rare event. They had to be tough because the pricing at the time basically doubled the value of the coin for each MS/PF point from 64 to 68.
From the June 1, 1989 PCGS pop report during the peak of the last bull market:
Barber half proofs for all dates after 3 years of grading.....in parenthesis are numbers from the July 2007 pop report.
PF60 - 50 pieces (161)
PF61 - 67 (323)
PF62 - 222 (804)
PF63 - 448 (1119)
PF64 - 576 (1291)
PF65 - 232 (583)
PF66 - 92 (390)
PF67 - 18 (187)
PF68 - 2 (36)
Pretty clear that in 1989 proof Barber halves basically ended at PF66. And for the 1904 a single PF66 and none higher for that time. In essence I had a pop 1 or 2 coin. Ironically, I actually lost a few hundred bucks on that coin after owning it for about 5-6 years. That fact that I could grade didn't help me all that much on that coin.
Does PCGS grade more "liberally" is a so called good economy. Now I understand that according to all TPG's they never change and are consistent..
For PCGS and NGC for that matter, the most conservative period was from each company's inception through 1987-8. PCGS was too conservative during that period and NGC was not far behind. The liberal period was in the mid decade of the early 2000s. It was duing that period that NGC graded some coins that I'm sure they would to have back.
<< <i>A good rule of thumb is that the grading services tend to be lax during market booms. When things tighten up they tend to get more strict.
For PCGS and NGC for that matter, the most conservative period was from each company's inception through 1987-8. PCGS was too conservative during that period and NGC was not far behind. The liberal period was in the mid decade of the early 2000s. It was duing that period that NGC graded some coins that I'm sure they would to have back. >>
While they no doubt regret grading some of those........I don't think they want those coins back.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I was heavily in the coin market from 1987-1989. There's no questions that every TPG's standards at that time were considerably tougher than today's. Back then, most gem classic coins stopped at the 65 grade. The really neat superb ones would get a 66. And you had to be a grading guru to figure out how to get a 67 on any coin (ie an Eric Streiner, Martin Paul, Jay Miller, Rick Sear, or Andy Lustig for example). Getting 66's and 67's today is common place. ANY essentially perfect Barber coin sporting an obvious facial hairline was limited to a 64 grade. No exceptions that I ever saw. Today, those same coins are now in 65-67 holders. Things are different for sure. More conservative today than 1986? Puhleez. I have to think that the elimination of all old holders from the market place is a major wish of both PCGS and NGC. Who wants to remind customers that standards were indeed different back then? Once those old holders are all gone there will only be photos and memories of that period.
Most liberal years? Probably 2004-mid 2008 as the coin market went crazy. The market demanded graded coins. There was a ready outlet at a solid price for any coin regardless of how it was graded. That changed by the fall of 2008. I personally don't think that the standards in 2013 are all that much tighter (if any) from the 2004-2008 years. The tightest standards at PCGS were in 1986-1987 when they first came out. It took a great coin to get a MS65 grade. When NGC first came out in 1987 their standards were off the wall tough. I recall sending in a "PF67" 1904 half that I had bought from Jay Miller in 1983 for $5400. The coin was incredible. Imagine my anxiety when it came back PF65 from NGC in early 1988 (CDN value of $3000-$3500). I regraded it about 6 months later and it made PF66. I have zero doubts it is in a PF67 (or PF68) holder today. At that time, there was no way to get the PF66+ or even PF67 label that such a coin deserved. Back then, a PF67 coin had to be essentially perfect. While they did give out PF68's on some Barbers and Seated coins, it was a rare event. They had to be tough because the pricing at the time basically doubled the value of the coin for each MS/PF point from 64 to 68.
From the June 1, 1989 PCGS pop report during the peak of the last bull market:
Barber half proofs for all dates after 3 years of grading.....in parenthesis are numbers from the July 2007 pop report.
PF60 - 50 pieces (161)
PF61 - 67 (323)
PF62 - 222 (804)
PF63 - 448 (1119)
PF64 - 576 (1291)
PF65 - 232 (583)
PF66 - 92 (390)
PF67 - 18 (187)
PF68 - 2 (36)
Pretty clear that proof Barber halves basically ended at PF66. And for the 1904 a single PF66 and none higher for that time. In essence I had a pop 1 or 2 coin. Ironically, I actually lost a few hundred bucks on that coin after owning it for about 5-6 years. That fact that I could grade didn't help me all that much on that coin. >>
I hope people are paying attention when Roadrunner takes the time to post information like this. Glad I happened on this post this morning. Great stuff.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Steve
Keep in mind that many circulated coins are now in slabs with MS grades attached.
A large cent specialist once told me that if the "absolutely no wear" standard were required for mint state early copper about 90% of the coins currently graded as MS would not make the grade. There would be a much larger number of AU 58s.
<< <i>A large cent specialist once told me that if the "absolutely no wear" standard were required for mint state early copper about 90% of the coins currently graded as MS would not make the grade. There would be a much larger number of AU 58s. >>
Same comment is true of early bust silver coinage as well. I might go as far to say that it applies to ALL bust silver coinage and possibly all pre-1852 seated coinage.
<< <i>A good rule of thumb is that the grading services tend to be lax during market booms. When things tighten up they tend to get more strict.
For PCGS and NGC for that matter, the most conservative period was from each company's inception through 1987-8. PCGS was too conservative during that period and NGC was not far behind. The liberal period was in the mid decade of the early 2000s. It was duing that period that NGC graded some coins that I'm sure they would to have back. >>
Correct. While I was at ANACS we tried to stay consistent. During the boom times of the Hunt Brothers fiasco, people complained that we were grading too conservatively. After the market crash, when the market puckered up severely, the same people complained that we were grading too liberally.
When the other TPGs came into existence, they started out at the tight buns end of the grading cycle and gradually, er, loosened their standards.
Roadrunner: <<I was heavily in the coin market from 1987-1989. There's no questions that every TPG's standards at that time were considerably tougher than today's. Back then, most gem classic coins stopped at the 65 grade. The really neat superb ones would get a 66. And you had to be a grading guru to figure out how to [identify a coin that may be PCGS graded 67,](ie an Eric Streiner, Martin Paul, Jay Miller, Rick Sear, or Andy Lustig for example). Getting 66's and 67's today is common place. ANY essentially perfect Barber coin sporting an obvious facial hairline was [then] limited to a 64 grade. No exceptions that I ever saw. Today, those same coins are now in 65-67 holders. Things are different for sure.>>
IMO, this statement is accurate, for the most part, and is brilliant.
Roadrunner: <<Most liberal years? Probably 2004-mid 2008 as the coin market went crazy. The market demanded graded coins. There was a ready outlet at a solid price for any coin regardless of how it was graded. That changed by the fall of 2008.
I agree with much of this statement, though not entirely. IMO, there was a wave of grade-inflation and successful coin doctoring from 1997 to 2007. The TPGs became tougher in late 2007 and early 2008, certainly tougher "by the fall of 2008," as Roadrunner says.
Roadrunner: <<I personally don't think that the standards in 2013 are all that much tighter (if any) from the 2004-2008 years.
I strongly disagree. In regard to alleged grade-inflation and coin doctoring, much has changed since the "2004-2008 years," fortunately.
The Formal Introduction of the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’ at the PCGS Luncheon
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
The Widening Gap (during 2009) between Prices of High End and Low End Certified coins of the same date, type and numerical grade