Options
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation???
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation, the TPG's or collectors?? Explain, please.
Al H.
Al H.
0
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
It's not entirely gradeflation as it is the inconsistency of the grading services where after enough submissions, a large % of coins can pop higher. Inconsistency may be the root cause....and the end result is gradeflation. There's no doubt that most coins today grade 1/2 to 1-1/2 points than they did in 1988. I'd blame Eliasberg and Pittman since after those auctions it seemed like the flood gates were opened.
If you crack 100 OGH dollars and send them in now, you would find more than half went down a point. There have always been undergraded coins in the holders, and if you can find them, everyone calls it gradeflation.
The real answer. Very expensive coins can now be given their correct grade because the companies are now large enough to guarantee the grade. They were not willing to take that risk years ago. Grading standards overall are more strict today, and I can back it up with real submissions, not just hearsay.
If you crack 100 OGH dollars and send them in now, you would find more than half went down a point. There have always been undergraded coins in the holders, and if you can find them, everyone calls it gradeflation.
Really? I'd bet if you sent in fresh OGH dollars that have been sitting off the market since slabbed (rattlers included) that maybe only 10% would downgrade, 30-60% would upgrade, and the rest would remain the same. What kind of OGH dollars do you mean? Because if you're talking OGH seated or bust dollars from 1988-1998 I'd say the majority of those have upgraded/stayed the same since their first submissions. I can't imagine a PCGS MS65 seated dollar from 1988 having downgraded since then. And same idea for a MS64/65 bust/trade dollars. And you took a fresh batch of OGH Morgans from the 1987-1990 era (ie never picked through for quality) the vast majority of them would upgrade/stay the same.
Who cares what the current OGH dollar retreads on the market do? Those aren't indicative of 1988-1998 grading. Those are the mainly the bottom 5-20% that keep on looking for permanent homes. 65-90% of original OGH's are gone. If they were nice, they'd have been cracked out or tried already. There are fresh hoards out there, but probably not many.
Yes, there have always been undergraded coins in holders. In the 1988-1990 period, when I was actively looking for crack outs at major auctions and major shows, I'd say 10-20% of any fresh submission had under-grades. Still, there's no denying that from 1988 to 2008 standards changed on both expensive coins and even cheap ones. The cheaper those MS65-67 common date Mercs and Buffs became, the easier to assign 66/67 grades to them. A 66 was a tough grade to earn in 1988 even in a common Walker, Buff, or Merc. Almost none of my seated coins graded MS66. In fact only 2 did. They had to be superb and monstrous to get that grade. Both of those are in MS67 CAC holders today.
If I take my original choice/gem seated coins from the 1980's (approx 30 coins), I'd say 60-80% are in higher holders today....a number of them 1-1/2 to 2 points higher. They were graded correctly in 1988. I can't think of more than 2 coins from that period that have downgraded. Most of them went into higher holders in 1998-2004. My 1856-0 and 1858-0 quarters both went 64 in 1988. And a single resubmission got them into 65 holders 1-3 months after that. Those 2 coins have gone back and forth from 64 to 65 holders over the past 18 years. Both coins are currently back in MS65 holders. So at worst, unchanged grades.
Steve
RR -- Why are they going back and forth?
New owners see something the last one didn't. Some might want it in a different TPG holder. I only submitted them twice myself. Others have since re-submitted them.
Those were liner coins with toning/eye appeal that varies wildly between graders. I always loved those 2 coins. That's why I never accepted the 64 grades the first time around, even if technically correct at the high end of 64 (ie 64++). I was shocked around 2012 to see my old 1858-0 quarter reappear in a 64+ holder. Couldn't believe someone was willing to downgrade it. Saner heads have prevailed and the coin is now graded PCGS MS65....the first time in 28 years that they were willing to do that. That was just after Gene Gardner sold it as a 64+.
Mottled toning brings out lots of varying opinions. Submit both the coins today raw to either service and another round of MS64's wouldn't surprise me. Still, even back in 1982/1983 when those 2 first appeared on the market, they fetched gem MS65 money. Look at the GTG threads with mottled or heavily toned coins and you'll get a huge range of opinions in both like/hate and AU to MS65. Just the way it is. TPG graders have those same internal opinions.
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation, the TPG's or collectors?? Explain, please.
Al H.
The grading companies. Responsibility and authority or power go hand in hand. Currently, the recognized authorities include the major TPGs, including PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and perhaps a few others. These companies have and have always had the power to stop gradeflation. They have also caused gradeflation. The whole idea of market grading implies a moving grading target driven by a fluctuating market and that is wrong in my opinion. Certainly, greed is the driving factor, and certainly collectors bear responsibility, but that is why we have or should have standards. JMHO
Tom
I got bored halfway through roadrunners post and stopped reading. Rattlers are not OGH's. Your hand picked coins are not a representation of 100 OGH coins. Go to a show, buy 100 OGH dollars and crack them out and send them in. Let me know what happens since you don't believe me.
I got bored halfway through roadrunners post and stopped reading. Rattlers are not OGH's. Your hand picked coins are not a representation of 100 OGH coins. Go to a show, buy 100 OGH dollars and crack them out and send them in. Let me know what happens since you don't believe me.
That's not what you posted originally....which was wrong. Apples vs. Oranges.
You get bored when shown to be incorrect. Rattlers are part of the OGH group, just an earlier version where the inserts were green. Ever seen a blue rattler insert....lol? If you read my post....which you didn't....you'd already know what I think about buying 100 random OGH's at a coin show today....the dregs of the dregs. What you meant to say was obvious. But how you said it made it incorrect. Potentially, 9X as many OGH's have gone to the graveyard while say 10% might remain. So you're judging ALL OGH's thoughout history from the remaining 10% you find at shows? Don't disparage 90% of the OGH market that ever existed based on your findings at a few coins shows. I was there for the original rattlers and OGH's. I made a thousand or two of those holders myself.
Now find a collection off the market and untouched since 1990-1992. You'd get totally different results. A point you either chose to ignore or were ignorant of.
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation, the TPG's or collectors?? Explain, please.
Sellers.
Because they're selling, and enough people buy from them.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I got bored halfway through roadrunners post and stopped reading. Rattlers are not OGH's. Your hand picked coins are not a representation of 100 OGH coins. Go to a show, buy 100 OGH dollars and crack them out and send them in. Let me know what happens since you don't believe me.
That's not what you posted originally....which was wrong. Apples vs. Oranges.
You get bored when shown to be incorrect. Rattlers are part of the OGH group, just an earlier version where the inserts were green. Ever seen a blue rattler insert....lol? If you read my post....which you didn't....you'd already know what I think about buying 100 random OGH's at a coin show today....the dregs of the dregs. What you meant to say was obvious. But how you said it made it incorrect. Potentially, 9X as many OGH's have gone to the graveyard while say 10% might remain. So you're judging ALL OGH's thoughout history from the remaining 10% you find at shows? Don't disparage 90% of the OGH market that ever existed based on your findings at a few coins shows. I was there for the original rattlers and OGH's. I made a thousand or two of those holders myself.
Now find a collection off the market and untouched since 1990-1992. You'd get totally different results. A point you either chose to ignore or were ignorant of.
Short attention span over here! I do not view Rattlers the same myself. They were much better. I have told the story a couple times around here. A friend asked me to send in 35-40 of his original OGH coins, (not rattlers), he had them made himself. (Morgans) He insisted on reconsideration, which I told him was a waste of money, especially after seeing the coins. Not a single one went up! You would think they would have given at least one bone there. I agreed though. I thought every single one was not only close to right, but many were overgraded. Now grab some DMPL OGH coins and you are screwed all day long with those. 9 out of 10 would not get the designation today. Cheers!
There are coins high and low end for the grade.
I tell you what. I am going to start accumulating fatties, OGH, rattlers and cracking them and sending them in and start a tally. However I will defer bc at the end of the day after shipping and TPG memberships and fees I will lose money.
Under-graded coins eventually get upgraded. Borderline coins eventually end up in the next highest grade. Over-graded coins will forever live with the higher grade.
The TPG's do the grading, but the market/collectors are just as responsible for pushing everything to the max.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
And I suspect we will not agree on this.
My politically incorrect answer is simply this-
There are those that choose to enhance and those that choose to live by what is...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Big Moose:
Yes, I believe that many of these were purchased by wholesalers who plan on submitting them for upgrades.
Roadrunner:
Yes and no, during the mid 1980s, grading was very conservative, according to my research. When PCGS was founded in 1986, there was even a little more grade-deflation. The inflation became a major factor in late 1988 perhaps or maybe early 1989. Admittedly, I am not sure. The crackout game was maniacal from late 1989 to the local (or all-time??) peak of rare U.S. coin markets in March 1990.
Roadrunner:
Although my wording would be different, Roadrunner is batting well in this thread, with extra bases. There were many Eliasberg and Pittman coins that were assigned grades that pertinent experts then regarded as too high. A strong wave of crackouts, grade-inflation and coin doctoring started in 1997 and simmered down in 2007 or so.
Roadrunner:
Although this statement is brilliant, alternate theories have been introduced.
Rick Snow (in a recent article): "The grading services – PCGS and NGC, both have a business model of ever-decreasing returns. They are fighting for submissions. The more coins they certify, the less coins there are to submit. This is the law of diminishing returns. If standards remained fixed and equal between grading services and the same standard were applied to coins year after year, soon there would be no reason to resubmit an already certified coin. "
Rick's article was cited by TDN in another thread
As was noted in that other thread, Rick seems to be theorizing that TPGs have had a plan to bring about grade-inflation. I disagree. I am not aware of any evidence of such plans. I really believe that the crackout guys and coin doctors are gaming the system. If the same coin is submitted over and over again, and the graders spend a short time on each coin, then the gamers calculate the odds of graders and a finalizer not seeing particular issues regarding individual coins. Have I identified the pertinent problems with the system in my articles relating to grade-inflation and coin doctoring?
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
These changing DMPL standards be seen in older holders of all major grading services.
It is very difficult to use the OGHs at a coin show to make a determination on grading. The coins on a bourse floor have naturally been "picked through" and "screened" to some degree.
The true way to make judgments would be to go through fresh, full submissions from any time period intact.
I have found fresh OGH submissions including rattlers and OGHs from the early to mid 90s to be somewhat conservatively graded on average. But this is assuming that the groups are intact and not screened.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
When was the last time you heard someone say, "Just got my results from the TPG. Boy, did they overgrade one coin. I'm sending that baby back in so they can have another shot at it!"
Under-graded coins eventually get upgraded. Borderline coins eventually end up in the next highest grade. Over-graded coins will forever live with the higher grade.
The TPG's do the grading, but the market/collectors are just as responsible for pushing everything to the max.
IMO, this is the "post of the thread" and hits the nail on the head, regarding this issue.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
BMAmorgan
Yes and no, during the mid 1980s, grading was very conservative, according to my research. When PCGS was founded in 1986, there was even a little more grade-deflation. The inflation became a major factor in late 1988 perhaps or maybe early 1989. Admittedly, I am not sure. The crackout game was maniacal from late 1989 to the local (or all-time??) peak of rare U.S. coin markets in March 1990.
Thanks for some kind comments Analyst.
I was pretty active in the "raw coin" NY City auction market of 1982-1989. And the middle years of 1983-1986 were certainly one of growing looseness in grading, even if not monumental. You had a lot of bigger dealers really ripping people such that the FTC had to come in by 1986 to squash it (thing NERCG and others from 1983-1986). Yet we had top dealers like NPI and Larry Whitlow who could get you some great coins at good prices. Both of those guys were agents for me at auction from 1983-1986 when I couldn't attend. No losers. It was a pretty good run. At those auctions gem coins went for gem money. Not much got by. But a lot of schlock went for way too much money too based on the catalog descriptions. I would imagine any collector/investor not armed with good grading skills or using a dealer to buy for them got their clocks cleaned from 1983-1986.
In 1984 I won a gem BU bust quarter than I had spent half an hour viewing in a NIOF NY City auction. I placed a bid by mail and won the coin for $6500. The coin sent to me was not the same one. This one had a pair of rail road track gouges across the obverse. I could not have missed such a thing in lot viewing. I enlisted a dealer to get me out from under that coin....still taking a $2,000 hit on it. That was the last NIOF auction I bid in. 22 years later the former CEO of NIOF went to prison for coin fraud. You know what they say about "what goes around?" The people that knew how to grade in the 1980's graded just fine. But, given the opportunity to cheat some people, too many dealers took the low road and "forgot" how to grade. If you asked me to place a number on that, I'd say 60-80% of all dealers. While there was a conservative grading system in play....only a minority of dealers used it when selling stuff. Of course most every dealer used it when buying....lol. There was a lot of "loose" grading coming out of a number of KS and MO firms in the 1970's and 1980's.
Summer of 1982 marked the extreme of conservative grading while 1986 probably market the top of the slop. By 1986/1987 the TPG's were redefining what it meant to be MS65...or at least reintroducing it to those who had no clue. If you bought at your local shops in the mid-1980's you frequently paid MS65 money for coins that were only 63+/64....if you were lucky. A lot of people got cleaned AU's for MS65 money. The biggest (?) rare coin company in 1983 sent me a $3,000 MS65 seated coin on my want list that was a cleaned AU worth $500. That was typical stuff. I had a home visit from Dana of NERCG in 1985 trying to sell me some gem type.....all of it cleaned and hairlined junk. He wasn't there long.
When was the last time you heard someone say, "Just got my results from the TPG. Boy, did they overgrade one coin. I'm sending that baby back in so they can have another shot at it!"
Under-graded coins eventually get upgraded. Borderline coins eventually end up in the next highest grade. Over-graded coins will forever live with the higher grade.
The TPG's do the grading, but the market/collectors are just as responsible for pushing everything to the max.
This is interesting. The only time I've sent coins back for grading again is when I honestly felt I got a horrible deal. And only a couple times in a thousand or more submissions do I think I might have received a "gift." I've never been one of those who submitted a raw MS65 imo and ended up with a MS67. That just never happened. I have bought coins as MS65 that came back as MS63's from PCGS. You know those went back...to NGC.
Ironically, some of the coins that went back were so conservatively graded the first time they jumped 2 grades on resubmit. So blame ME for gradeflation on these next 2 coins.
=1838-0 dime bought raw at auction as a 64+ at Stacks. NGC graded it 64 in 1988. I felt it was worth one more try to go 65. Since I was at Long Beach with a dealer sending stuff in to PCGS I piggy backed with them. The coin came back PCGS MS63. That was an immediate 50%/$3K loss on that coin. It had to go back. I was buried. NGC graded it MS65 next time through. I sold it for twice what I paid at $15,000. While I'd have been fine with a 64 grade the 2nd time, the system "commanded" me to keep going.
=1882 seated half bought raw at MS66+ money at Stacks...even thought it was mis-catalogued as a gem proof. NGC brutalized my entire submission of gem type and this coin was the most brutalized as it came back MS65....a $2K/35% loss. It had to go back along with 2/3 of that same submission. All but 2 coins in that submission went up a grade next time through. The 1882 went NGC MS67. Again, I'd have been happy with a MS66, but the coin was a 66+ imo.
In the pre-TPG era, these coins would have been worth what I paid for them give or take 10-15%. But once a grade lower was assigned, that was what they were worth, regardless what you had to pay for them competing against top dealers. That same 1838-0 dime was worth $7500 one month, $3500 the next month, and then $15,000 the month after that. Insanity! And the dealer I wholesaled it to retailed it for $18,000 as pop 1 finest graded. Yet 1 month earlier it "was" a MS63 that I couldn't get $4,000 for.
Sometimes the TPG's force you to resubmit. What other choice is there? I've rarely resubmitted PQ coins that I felt got the grade right the first time. But, I can also say I've sold a couple dozen 4-5 figure coins over 20 yrs that I felt were really solid for the grade and never resubmitted them....only to see the next owner did so and got an upgrade first or second time through.
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation, the TPG's or collectors?? Explain, please.
Al H.
The TPG. they are (as far as I know) professional graders, so for them to grade a coin two points higher is not acceptable grading. Do standards change, yes. Does market acceptable change, yes. Opinions definitely change but with all the information available to us from many years back, its hard to believe we still have a hard time deciding if a coin is a low grade POS or if it is understandably worthy of a lofty grade. I put a lot of trust in the grade on the plastic BUT in the end I find myself disagreeing with more than 75%. I collect Lincoln cents and there are alot of dogs out there including in my own set but affordability dictates.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation???
People. Yep, that's it. People.
Pretty much what brg5658 said.
Greed in general...from collectors, dealers, and TPGs.
In 1946, Otto Oddehon wrote a piece for The Numismatist (I don't recall the month as my notes are packed away) where he noted the significant issue of grade inflation. He inferred that grading descriptions were variable and changing which was leading to much confusion at the time.
Incidentally, in the same piece, he recommended that a series of actual coins in various grades should be kept at a central authority. Sadly, the ANA (nor anybody else) did not respond or the hobby may have had true standards for grading decades ago.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
x2 for this!!! that is the essence of what I would have typed if I were making a statement instead of asking a question.
I believe that collectors are, as a whole, intelligent people with above average powers of perception driven by greed. they know that grading is more Art than Science, that any individual or group will have a certain degree of inconsistency with regards to grading a coin. that is on the TPG, that is there responsibility and fault in the phenomenon of what we term grade-flation. the constant submission of a coin(s) to gain a desired result in the grading room is the fault of collectors/dealers.
until there is something in place to prevent this it will continue.......................but wait, there is something in place for just that. it's that scanner doo-hickey that PCGS uses to map a coin when sent in under the Secure format, right??? it would be a monumental undertaking for PCGS to map every coin submitted, it would shut down the circus somewhat in Newport Beach and across the country but the end result would be good for everyone who genuinely cares about the Hobby. it would mean more consistent grades, less monkeying around with coins and a more stable market-place where prices aren't as volatile.
those are precisely the reasons it will never happen.
Tommy:
Not exactly, it is really just a small number of extremely talented wholesalers who are responsible for a large percentage of the upgrades. In some cases, the same coin may be submitted more than ten times by one submitter, and a larger number if the submissions of all past owners since 1986 are incorporated into totals.
Most people who have played the crackout game were not successful. Usually, a player needs to have a high batting average, access to significant funds, and a lot of time. The fact that a notable percentage of crackout artists are coin doctors is relevant.
Roadrunner:
Roadrunner and I are talking past each other. I agree that, before PCGS was founded, it was far more common for dealers in the mainstream to deliberately mis-represent coins. Even given their imperfections, the coin business is far better with PCGS and our friends ATS than without them. It is important for coins to be graded by people who are not owners or current sellers of the coins being graded.
My research suggests that, among people who were competent graders, grading standards in the mid 1980s were far more stringent than they are now. I have heard from more than one source that, in 1984 and 1985, "to get Greysheet MS-65 bid, a coin had to be incredible."
For a while, PCGS practices reflected such thinking when PCGS was founded in 1986. Coins with hardly noticeable imperfections that now might be graded 66 or 67, possibly even 68, were then knocked to 64 because of slight hairlines or micro-marks. I have heard of many coins that were graded 65 in 1986 that now are graded 67 or 68. While it is impossible to verify all such stories, many reports sound convincing.
Keets: "I believe that collectors are, as a whole, intelligent people with above average powers of perception driven by greed. They know that grading is more Art than Science, that any individual or group will have a certain degree of inconsistency with regards to grading a coin. that is on the TPG, that is there responsibility and fault in the phenomenon of what we term grade-flation. the constant submission of a coin(s) to gain a desired result in the grading room is the fault of collectors/dealers."
Although Keets put forth some fair points, if Keets and some of other the participants in this thread are implying that there is not a viable solution, I do not agree. We can learn from the imperfections in the current system to support better systems in the future.
I honestly believe that, in my article on New Year's Eve of 2014, I put forth practical ideas for a better grading service in the future. This article was the co-winner of the NLG award for best article about coins to be published on a web site.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
Who do you think is most responsible for grade-flation, the TPG's or collectors?? Explain, please.
Al H.
I don't know how to explain how so many people can get the grade wrong. It's the dealer's fault, essentially. They seem to support both ends of the burning candle.
I heard a story about a guy with a PCGS 67 1909 S VDB RD that was sent in over 200 times for reconsideration until the one time it got pushed up to a 67+. Ugh
Wondercoin.
I hate the idea that someone can submit a coin still in the same holder for reconsideration as many times as they want without limit. If you want to try over and over to get the same coin a better grade you should have to crack the coin out and resubmit raw to risk getting a lower grade while fishing for a higher grade. I think the TPG should make a limit of 3 times that the same slab can be submitted for reconsideration. I think this would help stop gradeflation
I heard a story about a guy with a PCGS 67 1909 S VDB RD that was sent in over 200 times for reconsideration until the one time it got pushed up to a 67+. Ugh
Sorry, I would need to see the proof on the 200 times. Show submissions would run you $13000 plus fees and even if you attended every single show, it would take 10 years or more. Mailing it in would take longer back and forth, and if you used walkthrough to speed it up, that would now cost you $25000 plus fees and shipping and would still take many years with mailing and grading times.
And finally, the REAL reason I call BS on this...........There is not a 67+ RD in the POP report.
I'm not aware of any other area in commerce where it's generally acceptable to pay an appraisal service for a new appraisal, with a guarantee that the new appraisal will either stay the same or go up. It's beyond odd if you think about it.
Personally from the hobby standpoint as opposed to the financial investing one, I would like to see fast, affordable, relatively accurate grading, not ridiculously strict grading. Look at how few coins CAC assigns a gold sticker to; it is exceptionally hard to find them assigning gold stickers where the next higher grade goes up by double.
Wabbit... Show submissions would cost a great deal more than $13,000 unless the submittor was claiming his MS67RD with a Price Guide of $95,000 was only worth $3,000.
Your right!
Your looking at 25-30K in grading and fees, and then find out your 67+ is not even in the population report! (Because the story is simply that, a story.) How do people believe things like this? 200+ times?
PS, if the 200+ story was true, which it's not, it would have proved that there is no gradeflation.
Keep an open mind, or get financially repressed -Zoltan Pozsar
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If the fellow got his 67+, it must have just happened in the last week, because Coinfacts still shows MS67RD as the pop top grade for the SVDB. Otherwise, try #201 about to happen in Long Beach?
Wondercoin.
Okay, it seems the story was slightly off but that is beside the point. I am sure stuff like that happens and imo it's an abuse of the system that could easily be fixed
Joebb1.... Does that support a gradeflation argument or a near perfect consistency argument? Or neither? Wondercoin
Some coins by their nature breed variability. Others can be rock solid. It depends where in the grading/eye appeal spectrum they fall.
It supports the notion that a 64++ coin (ie 64.8 or 64.9) will almost always get the 64 grade, until it invariably gets the upgrade. It might take 2X or 20X but it WILL happen. Could take years too. The fact that the graders recognize a superb high end coin doesn't mean near perfect consistency. Such a coin should NEVER grade MS63 at either TPG. Those are the quality of coins that crack out artists look for.....zero downside and strong upside potential. Send the TPGs a middle of the road or low end coin, or one with lower to average eye appeal, and you'll get plenty of variability on multiple submissions. The more strange looking the coin with a myriad of "issues," the greater the variability. I recall an 1841 half dollar that me and a friend split out of Queller in 2002. We both felt the coin was lock 63 with a shot to MS64. Well, we never got the 64 but got different grades almost every time from 62, no grade, and 63. After the 2nd 63 we hung it up. The coin did have a minute spot removed from under the eagle's inner wing leaving some light abrasions and scratches only visible under 5X - hence the NG. That was a coin bred for grading variability.
My most recent experiences with a high end coin was a MS64++ 1856-0 quarter with beautiful toning and nice blast. I bought it in an OGH as a high probability upgrade coin. I sent it in 5X over 2 years, the most I ever tried any single coin. I was so sure it would upgrade in a couple of tries. Got MS64 every time. Anyone that would have graded that coin lower than MS64 would have be an idiot. It was an easy coin to grade MS64. Another 5X to 20X and someone likely would have gotten the upgrade. Ironically, I had an OGH MS64 1849 quarter at that time than wasn't quite as nice...it had much lower upgrade potential imo. When the 1856-0 didn't come back 65 after 5 tries, I never bothered with the 1849. I was tired of paying $50-$75 per submission. After I sold both coins, the 1849 upgraded to PCGS MS65 pop 1. Go figure that. The 1856-0? That upgraded too. But the new owner dipped and puttied it first. What a shame. One less nice 1856-0 quarter in the condition census.
Speaking of variability. After you get that elusive upgrade after multiple submissions....crack it out and send it back. How many tries do you think it would take for it to downgrade back to where it started from? Maybe 1-2 tries? That would prove variability. But, this option is never taken except by inexperienced graders/collectors who don't know when to leave well enough alone. I did that once by cracking out a PCGS MS64 $10 Lib that looked full gem 65+ to me. It came back NG/altered surfaces at both PCGS and NGC. I gave up on the coin to take my lumps at auction (raw). The auction house decided to send it back one more time....went MS66. Quite variable, huh? If cracked out today what do you think would happen? Maybe another NG? That would be interesting. I can only wonder how many times the person(s) before me submitted that coin to get the original MS64 grade? I stumbled into a hornet's nest and was lucky to get out with a nice profit. Most mistakes don't usually end that way.
I can think of about 1-2 dozen dealers responsible for gradeflation. No sense in listing them here.
It certainly makes sense that they might want to see, and grade (and get paid for grading) the coin a large number of times before upgrading it, since once it finally does "make it" to the next level, they're now responsible for the PCGS financial support at that new grade, naturally they want, get, and probably deserve a piece of that action.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
When PCGS finally grades a former MS64 coin (for example) as MS 65 after umpteen tries, they're "creating" value at the new grade level, in some cases this might be hundreds or even thousands of dollars of increased "value" that came about entirely from their (new) opinion, which they now have to back with their grade guarantee.
It certainly makes sense that they might want to see, and grade (and get paid for grading) the coin a large number of times before upgrading it, since once it finally does "make it" to the next level, they're now responsible for the PCGS financial support at that new grade, naturally they want, get, and probably deserve a piece of that action.
Technically, yes. They back the coin at the new grade. In reality? They really don't because if you sent back the entirety of every coin graded still residing in holders, 95-99% of them would be rescreened as acceptable in the current holder. Yet, we all know it's pretty hard to be more than 75-85% accurate/consistent even when the best graders are assembled. And that assumes no resubmissions....just sticking with the grade that occurred the first time in. On a very limited basis for the most egregious over-grades, the TPG's cover them. But I'd say for 90% of questionable grades you're out of luck. Those won't ever get covered.
The TPG's shouldn't be in the business of "creating" value with a higher grade. They should just assign the grade the coin is worth and let the market participants agree on price. There's really no place for 10X, 20X or 50X resubmissions to get an upgrade. That's just insane...at least over a shorter period of 1-5 years. I can understand a coin from 1990 being submitted 10X today if it doesn't upgrade the first few times. I've had a few coins like that. And you know what, while they didn't upgrade for me on 2-4 retries, they did for the next guy. Gene Gardner ended up with my 1838 half dime that was graded MS67 back in 1990. It was a wonderful coin. PCGS would never cross it. And NGC wouldn't even plus it last time I tried it in 2009. They did give it a 67* though. Gene got the coin and it regraded to NGC MS68, basically what I felt all along was fair for that coin. The whole game of assigning grades and values has gotten to weird extremes that we all would have called implausible 10-15 years ago.
I have seen certain coins be submitted 30+ times until they finally upgraded.
They should just provide a class of submission where the coin(s) are recycled through their system until it either upgrades or the submitter throws in the towel. Just think of the money one can save, the money the PO would lose and the more money they could make. Call it the Cyclone submission! "We won't send it back until you beg us to."
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection