I'm tracking a group of 5 coins that I sold recently, that are now have a new Cert#.
When I sold them, the 5 coins all had CAC green beans.
Now 4 of the 5 that went up a point or more did not get a CAC bean in the new holder.
Only 1, that went up by a + has been CAC'd again.
So at least it seems CAC is consistent.
The old cert# are still valid at this time, so I assume they were cracked out and resubmitted raw.
I will checking the old cert# in the future to see if they become invalid.
If they do, then at least the pop report is somewhat accurate.
To be honest, I didn't think any of them would have gone up by more than a + grade, so I didn't try to get them re-graded first. Most of them sold for a strong price in the current grade anyways, but I missed out on the increased value they got when they upgraded by a full grade.
I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
@10000lakes said:
I'm tracking a group of 5 coins that I sold recently, that are now have a new Cert#.
When I sold them, the 5 coins all had CAC green beans.
Now 4 of the 5 that went up a point or more did not get a CAC bean in the new holder.
Only 1, that went up by a + has been CAC'd again.
So at least it seems CAC is consistent.
I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
Good info 10000lakes and for keeping us informed on this. I sort of expected that CAC would not fall for those upgrades. It's the reason they opened up their doors for business in 2008. Don't beat yourself up too hard on having personal standards different from today's For some of us that learned TPG standards in the 1980's, we have multiple "grading sets" floating around in our heads (one from 1989, another from 1998, another from 2004, and then one from 2008)...and every year we/they become more and more irrelevant. The current grading set (2012-2016) is not in my head since I've done zip for the past 5 years.
Salzburg could tighten up the NGC standards to more in line with say 1998. But, in my mind, that would only shift more coins towards PCGS. It wouldn't be until NGC graded millions of coins to a new standard that any chance of taking the lead back from PCGS could possibly occur. And regardless, the issue of the other 30+ MILL NGC coins graded under the standards of the past 15 years would still be out there on the market. I don't see a way to win this fight.....without both TPG's somehow working together to address the problem. That's not likely either.
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
For me, the proof 70uc/dc market from 1973-1976 stands out the most when comparing the 2 companies for that sort of thing: 39 at NGC and 2,056 at PCGS. I have made all but 1 of the NGC 70UC coins personally for that range: 0 Lincoln, 3 Jefferson, 21 Roosevelt, 12 Washington, 2 Kennedy and 1 IKE (a cameo). Nearly all of these are the 1976 clad series just a couple of the rest.
The PCGS pops combined for this dates are: 3 Lincoln, 119 Jefferson, 648 Roosevelt, 615 Washington, 453 Kennedy and 218 IKE. I know both of the graders really well and the PCGS 70's are as you would expect very loose for that range. i see them all of the time. Many planchet marks, digs, nicks, scuffs "dip burns" and "dip toning" on the 70DC PCGS coins I have seen. The biggest difference is the reverse of the coins and the level of cameo accepted as perfect, many times the same for the obverse.
Anyway, just to go on record, the difference is not recognized in the marketplace past 2 or 3 buyers and it is a shame but a fact and I just wish NGC would loosen up, so there is an actual market for these dates. I'm sure NGC knows about this quite well without me bending their ear on it.
I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
I'm sure you believe this but it isn't realistic. in fact, it is at the heart of the grade-flation hand wringing that many members express --- that it is possible or even likely to grade the same over the course of 5-10-20 years. it is logical to assume that as an individual grows in knowledge and experience he/she will "change their standard" of grading.
with a company such as PCGS or NGC it is the same. the forum as a whole tends to agree that(or at least has expressed as much over the time I have been here) what the TPG's do by "grading" coins is to essentially rank and price them. that tells me that over the years they are getting a better idea of where a particular coin should rank in the population report. in other words what was an MS65 20 years ago is quite likely an MS66 now that 50K of that coin type have been examined.
it doesn't rub me one way or the other, I just try to adapt and navigate the Hobby the best I can.
Bill--I agree with your comments 100% and I have the same reaction when I see an NGC graded coin and I, too, am sorry to say that. It wasn't always that way.
EagleEye--maybe you are correct. Maybe it is time to have this discussion. I, for one, was thinking of your recent article on how gradeflation hurts the market, when I was reading Salzberg's letter. However, the article is blatantly self-serving and inaccurate in that NGC is worse, or looser than PCGS. However, it may be that the entire coin market needs to look to the utter lack of any fixed, recognizable, objective, time-tested grading standards. Those don't exist today....the standard floats or adjusts according to the market. To me, that is simply ridiculous. Even CAC is not immune to the market pressures since CAC's model is to buy coins it CACs. So, if CAC's monetary stability changes or takes a downward turn, it stands to reason that CAC might be tempted to CAC fewer coins. I'm not saying I have seen that, since I don't buy many CAC'd coins, but the risk is there.
@keets said: I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
I'm sure you believe this but it isn't realistic. in fact, it is at the heart of the grade-flation hand wringing that many members express --- that it is possible or even likely to grade the same over the course of 5-10-20 years. it is logical to assume that as an individual grows in knowledge and experience he/she will "change their standard" of grading.
with a company such as PCGS or NGC it is the same. the forum as a whole tends to agree that(or at least has expressed as much over the time I have been here) what the TPG's do by "grading" coins is to essentially rank and price them. that tells me that over the years they are getting a better idea of where a particular coin should rank in the population report. in other words what was an MS65 20 years ago is quite likely an MS66 now that 50K of that coin type have been examined.
it doesn't rub me one way or the other, I just try to adapt and navigate the Hobby the best I can.
I do believe it since i was the one that wrote it
I understand the evolution of grading standards, but it doesn't mean I have to participate on the "buy side" of this new world. It's been a learning experience over the last couple of years on the "sell side" of the process. I now see the light, and I'm taking appropriate steps to minimize leaving too much money on the table for the crack out crowd to reap.
I cannot address the market as a whole but can tell you that New Orleans Type One $20 coins in PCGS holders command a premium relative to NGC. I have crossed a few NGC coins to PCGS - same grade. I think this article is a response to the fact the PCGS coins command a premium and NGC does not like getting back empty holders that once held coins they graded. I would be interested how many PCGS coins are crossed over to NGC holders unless an upgrade is involved. An example - take a look at the number of $20 1850 O coins PCGS has graded relative to NGC. NGC has graded three or four as low end unc and PCGS has never graded one higher than 58. In the au range NGC has graded many more as au relative to PCGS, which is a good indicator of which TPG is more strict. I think pop numbers for rare coins are overstated and vis versa for high pop coins as many are sold raw. If several 5C 1912 S nickels entered the market and were graded because the price was high what would you expect to happen no matter who graded them? The ultimate test is what the market puts a premium and NGC does not like the results. A few graph, charts, etc. just don't override what the market dictates.
The bottom line is these statements about PCGS are just an excuse to do what he wanted to do a couple of years ago when he banned PCGS coins from his foreign coin registries. He wanted to stop any more PCGS coins from going on his registry because some so many of them were there already.
This is just marketing, and he made the mistake of pushing out a falsehood to support his actions. This latest email is just a doubling down of what he said in December., A lot of us didn't buy it then, and we aren't buying it now. I'd love to show him some of the stuff I looked at the Fort Lauderdale FUN bourse. Even he might have been shocked buy it.
There was an 1839-C quarter eagle in an NGC AU-58 holder that had been been cleaned with a huge scratch on the face. It was NOT just the struck through that is sometimes seen on this date and mint mark combination. I don't who the finalizer was one that one, but whoever he was, he missed a big one.
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 ... ?
I've got a 1904 $20 that I bought raw which came with an NGC AU58 cert. It was just slabbed at PCGS as MS61. I had another $20 in the submission that I thought for sure was a slider, it also came back 61. I was surprised, and I'm not complaining.
Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but all the graphs in the parent article were high-MS grade (and mostly) moderns. Does it really surprise anyone that there'd be quibbling over what constitutes an MS64 vs a 65, or a 66 vs a 67, not to mention + grades? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I saw a shift with all grading services 8 years ago, stopped buying coins, and happily moved my focus fully toward exonumia never looking back. Although it's silly for a grading service to point a finger at another as if one service got loose the rest went right along. Just as an example try doing a $10 Indian set in recent AU58 and compare todays graded coins to those found 10+ years ago... It's like night and day.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
I think the main driver of price declines that Mark highlights is not overgrading or increasing populations but using the lower prices that overgraded coins garner in public auction as the real value for all coins. This is a recent phenomenon. It is now super easy to track auction prices and the overgraded junk is factored equally with the correctly graded coins by most everyone.
Example: You have a Grey sheet price of $1,000 for a specific coin in MS65 and a MS64 is worth $500. When a MS64 undeservedly upgrades to MS65 and is now considered overgraded. What will it sell for at auction? Probably $800. Now the grey sheet will see that and lower the price to this new market data. You look at Coinfacts and you will see that $800 datapont as well. The next time a MS65 shows up, what will you be willing to pay? $800 or $1,000?
As a bit of a spreadsheet and data nerd, I began to look into some of the pop comparisons offered.
While one might presume that pops of modern coins will continue to rise as more are pulled from shoe boxes and submitted, older coins don't work that way, unless a shipwreck is discovered. For example, with the last inventories from the Central America now available, 1857-S double eagle pops may double.
The 13-S lib nickel numbers caught my eye. Interesting coins, but not something about which I'm knowlegable. One email to someone in the know, gave me the word "hoard," and the mention earlier in this thread of two rolls, is huge.
I have two questions.
First, if one found that sort of hoard, wouldn't it be smarter to leak pieces into the marketplace, one at a time?
Second, and with all due respect, one must presume that Mr. Salzburg has this knowledge, and if that's the case, isn't this an inappropriate example?
One fact is that grading is so subjective.
Grading is not a science, it is an act.
Although top grading companies try to keep a standard it is impossible, because of humans.
The best part of grading is to eliminate fakes!
Pat Vetter,Mercury Dime registry set,1938 Proof set registry,Pat & BJ Coins:724-325-7211
Couple more thoughts: As far as things like a 1995W ASE or 1974S quarter in proof-70DCAM, maybe after looking at enough examples, they say, "well, these are about as nice as they come, that one was a 70, so here's another 70, and another, and another...
ANd, as far as something like, "There was an 1839-C quarter eagle in an NGC AU-58 holder that had been been cleaned with a huge scratch on the face. It was NOT just the struck through that is sometimes seen on this date and mint mark combination. I don't who the finalizer was one that one, but whoever he was, he missed a big one.",
that might very well be termed "gradeflation" but maybe it's just net-grading an otherwise MS6x coin for the problems. After all, what would be your net grade (how "huge" was the scratch?) AU55? 50? Certainly not 30 or 20, was it?
@PTVETTER said:
One fact is that grading is so subjective.
Grading is not a science, it is an act.
Although top grading companies try to keep a standard it is impossible, because of humans.
The best part of grading is to eliminate fakes!
I disagree, in part, with this. Grading is somewhat subjective, and differences exist, but it is not impossible, or even that difficult to set an objective standard and then try to stick to it. Ask any old-timer. Many still grade the way they did 30 years ago. The simple fact that grades have been inflating and that standards have been relaxing--in one direction--upward--is the best argument that grade slip is intentional and directed. It can even be reversed, in theory. That is different than the normal differences that one will encounter when you ask 2 people to assign a grade to something. That part of grading is an art and not a science. The other part-the part that allows the market to influence grades, is not an art and ignores objectivity in a way that I have never seen in any numerical standard that I can think of--though there may be some. Is diamond grading subject to the same problem? Cards? I really don't know, but in coins, it is a problem that has been created by the industry itself.
My take on the article and this discussion is that I am thankful that I turned most of my collecting interest to foreign coins several years ago. I purchased 9 world coins at NYINC, none of which were slabbed or will be submitted by me.
I agree with Rick on a different note as I specialize more in better Circulated grades. The grading services are allowing coins through now that would not straight grade before.
A recent experience... I had a choice original VF30 offered for $525. I get an email comparing it to a lower priced XF40 that should never have been allowed in a holder for $445. I just happened to have a nicer XF40 that should have never holdered also and sent him pictures. He loved it and I sold it to him for $435! Some people do buy plastic.
Unfortunately the Salzberg rant and this discussion do more to hurt the hobby than to bolster it. Not only is grading subjective, but opinions can and do change which explains why the same coin is resubmitted multiple times until it is housed in the holder and at the grade sought by the submitter. And that is just one part of what makes the coin market. There has been so much talk about standards and grade inflation but absolutely no talk about coins. Why is that? Has this really become the hobby of plastic, llabels and stickers instead of what is in the plastic?
Let's talk about coins for a moment. Coins within a series are just not created equal as the quality can very significantly- just compare a 1904 Morgan in MS65 to an 1881-s in 65. Do you really expect the quality to be the same? Clearly they will not be and the 1881-s will be held to a higher standard. Even if you take two coins that are both graded 65, one may be better than the other but both could be within the 65 range. So instead of looking at the actual coins, collectors look at plastic and stickers as guidance and complain about standards. Grading is not a math problem but collectors seem to treat what is intended to be an opinion as if it is exact and absolute.
I am tired of this... The discussion needs to focus on the coin, the series and what makes a coin stand out from other similar coins besides the plastic and stickers which seem have most everyone spellbound as if that is more significant. And if that is more significant, than what is it that you collect... Plastic with labels or coins?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Great thread. I have only been back in numismatics since 2007 so I don't have the perspective many of you have looking back 20, 30, even 40 years and watching things evolve.
I can say there seems to be a large number of slabbed coins in the marketplace that appear overgraded. Perhaps this Salzberg's article will help address gradeflation but more likely it will bring increased attention to the problem without consequences.
Thanks to all who have posted and shared their wisdom.
So I guess I can expect the two submissions I have in New Port Beach right now to get the shaft to keep in check the "gradeflation". Thanks you weenies!!!
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
@coinkat said:
Unfortunately the Salzberg rant and this discussion does more to hurt the hobby than to bolster it. Not only is grading subjective, but opinions can and do change as reflected by the same coin be resubmitted until it housed in the holder that is sought by the submitter. And that is just one part of what makes a market. There has been so much talk about standards and grade inflation but absolutely no talk about coins. Why is that? Has this really become the hobby of plastic, llabels and stickers instead of what is in the plastic?
Let's talk about coins for a moment. Coins within a series are just not created equal as the quality can very significantly- just compare a 1904 Morgan in MS65 to an 1881-s in 65. Do you really expect the quality to be the same? Clearly they will not be of the same and the 1881-s will be held to a higher standard. Even if you take two coins that are both graded 65, one may be better than the other but both could be within the 65 range. So instead of looking at the actual coins, collectors look at plastic and stickers as guidance. This is a problem because grading is not a math problem but collectors seem to treat an opinion as if it is exact and absolute.
I am tired of this... The discussion needs to focus on the coin, the series and what makes a coin stand out from other similar coins besides the plastic and stickers which seem have most everyone spellbound as if that is more significant. And if that is more significant, than what is it that you collect... Plastic with labels or coins?
Couldn't agree with you more. Good post. Best post on this thread for sure.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I met this guy recently and talk about arrogant by the way. Here is the lovely NGC MS-69 Morgan. I have MANY PCGS 67's that blow his 69 away! I posted one I just had graded at FUN right below the NGC coin. I invite you to click on the image and look up close. A 69 should be flawless to the eye.
My 67, graded less than 2 weeks ago!!
What a stunner! I like your 67 better.
Don't forget to include me in your generous giveaway!
Problem with this example is that it is very hard to grade by images, one needs to see the both coins in hand, and preferably side by side to draw a comparison......... Just putting images of two different coins taken by two different photographers and trying to draw comparisons makes no sense.
At least for the present though, NGC totally dominates the grading for world coins. Check out the auction archives from Heritage for world coins, for example. NGC holdered coins are in this archive in a ratio of 3 to 1 over PCGS holdered coins........ So is NGC the preferred grader of world coins and do they have a better reputation for consistency in this arena? I have no experience with world coins so I have no idea.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I met this guy recently and talk about arrogant by the way. Here is the lovely NGC MS-69 Morgan. I have MANY PCGS 67's that blow his 69 away! I posted one I just had graded at FUN right below the NGC coin. I invite you to click on the image and look up close. A 69 should be flawless to the eye.
My 67, graded less than 2 weeks ago!!
What a stunner! I like your 67 better.
Don't forget to include me in your generous giveaway!
Problem with this example is that it is very hard to grade by images, one needs to see the both coins in hand, and preferably side by side to draw a comparison......... Just putting images of two different coins taken by two different photographers and trying to draw comparisons makes no sense.
The comparison and point he is making is clear as day imo. The photos are good enough to show that the top coin is not a 69.
The pop boys are prevailing and always will I think. This is not "exactly" what I said in the below interview dated April 2, 1996. What I actually said was dealers not investors, and the dealers I was referring to was not the experienced guys but the new guys who only know how to ask "whats the pop"?
In addition to serving all ranges of numismatic specialties, Pilitowski is a strong proponent of numismatic education. He's fighting what he calls "pop boys," a new breed of numismatic investors who are in it solely for the money. http://www.usrarecoininvestments.com/about_us/education.htm
This is more and more reason to do your research !
Maybe just a stupid thought or question, but could the services scan an image of every coin they see and enter it into a database much like fingerprints? Would everyone be unique, and if so, they could then scan new coins submitted and know they had seen it in the past and how it was graded.
@keets said:
I wonder if PCGS or NGC do "market analysis" by taking what they deem their properly graded coins and submitting them to the other service??
This is whats known as a "secret shopper" approach.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
As a businessman with 30+ years in the professional world, this seems like an act of desperation on the part of NGC to me. Try to disparage the market giant in the hopes of creating an image that we are "competitors" rather than a clear #1 and #2. It's much like Coke and Pepsi to me. There is one dominant market leader and a wannabe with a smaller but devoted following. I take it as a marketing ploy to be honest. I used to equally buy PCGS and NGC coins but in recent years buy almost exclusively those graded by PCGS. In my opinion, the grades are consistently more accurate, the values are higher, and the liquidity is better. In short, PCGS is the Coca-Cola of coins. From a certain standpoint I can see why NGC would try to attack PCGS, but frankly, why try to call them out on the very issue many of us have with NGC. I see it as a poorly constructed strategy that won't help NGC gain a single point of market share.
@RB1026 said:
As a businessman with 30+ years in the professional world, this seems like an act of desperation on the part of NGC to me. Try to disparage the market giant in the hopes of creating an image that we are "competitors" rather than a clear #1 and #2. It's much like Coke and Pepsi to me. There is one dominant market leader and a wannabe with a smaller but devoted following. I take it as a marketing ploy to be honest. I used to equally buy PCGS and NGC coins but in recent years buy almost exclusively those graded by PCGS. In my opinion, the grades are consistently more accurate, the values are higher, and the liquidity is better. In short, PCGS is the Coca-Cola of coins. From a certain standpoint I can see why NGC would try to attack PCGS, but frankly, why try to call them out on the very issue many of us have with NGC. I see it as a poorly constructed strategy that won't help NGC gain a single point of market share.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I met this guy recently and talk about arrogant by the way. Here is the lovely NGC MS-69 Morgan. I have MANY PCGS 67's that blow his 69 away! I posted one I just had graded at FUN right below the NGC coin. I invite you to click on the image and look up close. A 69 should be flawless to the eye.
My 67, graded less than 2 weeks ago!!
What a stunner! I like your 67 better.
Don't forget to include me in your generous giveaway!
Problem with this example is that it is very hard to grade by images, one needs to see the both coins in hand, and preferably side by side to draw a comparison......... Just putting images of two different coins taken by two different photographers and trying to draw comparisons makes no sense.
The comparison and point he is making is clear as day imo. The photos are good enough to show that the top coin is not a 69.
@baseball said:
IMHO, I don't think the article was good for anyone. Not PCGS. Not NGC. Not collectors. It very much had the feel of "We may go down in flames, but we're taking everyone with us."
As long as they have the world grading market domination, they are not going down in flames. But this was obviously a poorly handled way of trying to regain market share for US coins and I agree it is not good for anyone in numismatics.
@spacehayduke said:
At least for the present though, NGC totally dominates the grading for world coins. Check out the auction archives from Heritage for world coins, for example. NGC holdered coins are in this archive in a ratio of 3 to 1 over PCGS holdered coins........ So is NGC the preferred grader of world coins and do they have a better reputation for consistency in this arena? I have no experience with world coins so I have no idea.
Best, SH
I agree with the 3:1 NGC:PCGS ratio for world coins PRIOR to October 2016. PCGS signed a 5 year mega-deal with Chinese Mint over the summer and started furiously grading coins in October. They did maybe 500,000 Chinese coins last quarter alone. To keep that in perspective, the December quarter is the slowest and PCGS US probably only did 400,000 coins. If this rate keeps up, you will quickly see complete and total WORLD DOMINATION by PCGS over NGC.
Now combine that with the PCGS US Modern bulk pricing change which started last January and brought PCGS and NGC even in Modern coins and NGC is in a world of hurt (PCGS owns the Vintage market 70/30). NGC previously had a 70/30 lead in Modern coins.
CLCT just announced a $10M line of credit to keep the pressure on NGC.
The Board of NGC probably met over the last week or two and discussed last year's results which showed this new trend. Salzberg probably got no year end bonus and most likely dressed down. Prior to last year PCGS and NGC were #1 and #1A. Now NGC is a distant #2. How do you let that happen as a CEO in such a short time? The article was his act of desperation. My outside opinion of course.
@earlycoins said:
As a bit of a spreadsheet and data nerd, I began to look into some of the pop comparisons offered.
While one might presume that pops of modern coins will continue to rise as more are pulled from shoe boxes and submitted, older coins don't work that way, unless a shipwreck is discovered. For example, with the last inventories from the Central America now available, 1857-S double eagle pops may double.
The 13-S lib nickel numbers caught my eye. Interesting coins, but not something about which I'm knowlegable. One email to someone in the know, gave me the word "hoard," and the mention earlier in this thread of two rolls, is huge.
I have two questions.
First, if one found that sort of hoard, wouldn't it be smarter to leak pieces into the marketplace, one at a time?
Second, and with all due respect, one must presume that Mr. Salzburg has this knowledge, and if that's the case, isn't this an inappropriate example?
Inquiring minds...
EC
I want to see these 13-S lib nickels!
I would certainly agree on releasing a large number into the market slowly.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
The Board of NGC probably met over the last week or two and discussed last year's results which showed this new trend. Salzberg probably got no year end bonus and most likely dressed down.
That is amusingly unlikely.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The Board of NGC probably met over the last week or two and discussed last year's results which showed this new trend. Salzberg probably got no year end bonus and most likely dressed down.
That is amusingly unlikely.
I disagree. The CLCT CEO and CFO got reduced bonuses last year as profit margins decreased with the price war. As Willis said, PCGS is open. Everything is published in SEC documents and/or on their website. Executive bonuses were down. Why would you believe that the NGC CEO would not have been financially "punished" as well? I will even go out on a bigger limb and say that if NGC allows the deterioration to continue this year on the same scale, he will be sacked this time next year. The CLCT execs are probably feeling pressure to get margins up as well. If I had to chose, I would much rather be in CLCT's position.
CLCT stock was up over 40% last year including the dividend. Not much more than the small cap average. If NGC were a public company, it probably would have well underperformed that average.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I met this guy recently and talk about arrogant by the way. Here is the lovely NGC MS-69 Morgan. I have MANY PCGS 67's that blow his 69 away! I posted one I just had graded at FUN right below the NGC coin. I invite you to click on the image and look up close. A 69 should be flawless to the eye.
My 67, graded less than 2 weeks ago!!
What a stunner! I like your 67 better.
Don't forget to include me in your generous giveaway!
Problem with this example is that it is very hard to grade by images, one needs to see the both coins in hand, and preferably side by side to draw a comparison......... Just putting images of two different coins taken by two different photographers and trying to draw comparisons makes no sense.
While images can lie - some marks on a coin disappear with the light at certain angles, the NGC coin is over graded in this example. That's a fact and not an opinion.
If you cannot see the difference between these two coins I suggest you take a grading seminar and only purchase slabs after you have asked half a dozen dealers their opinion about the coin in the slab you are buying. For a start, 1 or 2 miniscule contact marks (none in PFA) can be found on a typical MS-69 coin. Usually, you'll need to look to find them. The NGC coin has at least eight that are easily seen.
Finally, we can post images of over graded, under graded, and correctly graded coins slabbed by EVERY TPGS. NGC lost this comparison.
@learningcoins said:
Maybe just a stupid thought or question, but could the services scan an image of every coin they see and enter it into a database much like fingerprints? Would everyone be unique, and if so, they could then scan new coins submitted and know they had seen it in the past and how it was graded.
Great thinking out of the box...This has been suggested as far back as 1972 before grading was routinely done at ANACS. The images were to be used to identify die struck fakes but they would also be useful for the internal grading record kept (along with the coin's weight) to help ID the coin if it were ever lost and to protect the service from any claim of switching.
Your "new" idea was suggested again to the owner of a major TPGS in the late 1990's to accomplish exactly what you point out. With a system such as this the grade assigned would never be changed unless an error was originally made. Back then, grading standards were NOT EVOLVING in any significant way. The person who proposed this joked that it would appear to be just like actual "computer grading" (Compugrade had failed years before).
Today, this system could be put into practice for "better" coins with little effort. Downside is that revenue from resubmissions would dry up. I've been told that the owner of a TPGS gave a presentation where he said something like: "Any coin worth sending in for grading once is worth sending in again!"
@RB1026 said:
As a businessman with 30+ years in the professional world, this seems like an act of desperation on the part of NGC to me. Try to disparage the market giant in the hopes of creating an image that we are "competitors" rather than a clear #1 and #2. It's much like Coke and Pepsi to me. There is one dominant market leader and a wannabe with a smaller but devoted following. I take it as a marketing ploy to be honest. I used to equally buy PCGS and NGC coins but in recent years buy almost exclusively those graded by PCGS. In my opinion, the grades are consistently more accurate, the values are higher, and the liquidity is better. In short, PCGS is the Coca-Cola of coins. From a certain standpoint I can see why NGC would try to attack PCGS, but frankly, why try to call them out on the very issue many of us have with NGC. I see it as a poorly constructed strategy that won't help NGC gain a single point of market share.
**At least for the present though, NGC totally dominates the grading for world coins. **
looking at some of the additional grading the PCGS has begun doing in the past several years it seems clear "they" have a business plan to make inroads in areas where NGC had the lions share of all TPG's. Exonumia and World are the places where PCGS either did very little or none at all, now that is changing.
Comments
I'm tracking a group of 5 coins that I sold recently, that are now have a new Cert#.
When I sold them, the 5 coins all had CAC green beans.
Now 4 of the 5 that went up a point or more did not get a CAC bean in the new holder.
Only 1, that went up by a + has been CAC'd again.
So at least it seems CAC is consistent.
The old cert# are still valid at this time, so I assume they were cracked out and resubmitted raw.
I will checking the old cert# in the future to see if they become invalid.
If they do, then at least the pop report is somewhat accurate.
To be honest, I didn't think any of them would have gone up by more than a + grade, so I didn't try to get them re-graded first. Most of them sold for a strong price in the current grade anyways, but I missed out on the increased value they got when they upgraded by a full grade.
I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
Even if the SAME coin has been in 25 different PCGS holders at the same or [1 lower] grade.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Good info 10000lakes and for keeping us informed on this. I sort of expected that CAC would not fall for those upgrades. It's the reason they opened up their doors for business in 2008. Don't beat yourself up too hard on having personal standards different from today's For some of us that learned TPG standards in the 1980's, we have multiple "grading sets" floating around in our heads (one from 1989, another from 1998, another from 2004, and then one from 2008)...and every year we/they become more and more irrelevant. The current grading set (2012-2016) is not in my head since I've done zip for the past 5 years.
Salzburg could tighten up the NGC standards to more in line with say 1998. But, in my mind, that would only shift more coins towards PCGS. It wouldn't be until NGC graded millions of coins to a new standard that any chance of taking the lead back from PCGS could possibly occur. And regardless, the issue of the other 30+ MILL NGC coins graded under the standards of the past 15 years would still be out there on the market. I don't see a way to win this fight.....without both TPG's somehow working together to address the problem. That's not likely either.
@BillJones
Very well articulated
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......
For me, the proof 70uc/dc market from 1973-1976 stands out the most when comparing the 2 companies for that sort of thing: 39 at NGC and 2,056 at PCGS. I have made all but 1 of the NGC 70UC coins personally for that range: 0 Lincoln, 3 Jefferson, 21 Roosevelt, 12 Washington, 2 Kennedy and 1 IKE (a cameo). Nearly all of these are the 1976 clad series just a couple of the rest.
The PCGS pops combined for this dates are: 3 Lincoln, 119 Jefferson, 648 Roosevelt, 615 Washington, 453 Kennedy and 218 IKE. I know both of the graders really well and the PCGS 70's are as you would expect very loose for that range. i see them all of the time. Many planchet marks, digs, nicks, scuffs "dip burns" and "dip toning" on the 70DC PCGS coins I have seen. The biggest difference is the reverse of the coins and the level of cameo accepted as perfect, many times the same for the obverse.
Anyway, just to go on record, the difference is not recognized in the marketplace past 2 or 3 buyers and it is a shame but a fact and I just wish NGC would loosen up, so there is an actual market for these dates. I'm sure NGC knows about this quite well without me bending their ear on it.
Whatever PCGS and NGC has to say about the other, they're good to keep each other in check and enjoy the successes each has accomplished.
I guess I'm still using my own personal grading standard that hasn't been inflated over time
I'm sure you believe this but it isn't realistic. in fact, it is at the heart of the grade-flation hand wringing that many members express --- that it is possible or even likely to grade the same over the course of 5-10-20 years. it is logical to assume that as an individual grows in knowledge and experience he/she will "change their standard" of grading.
with a company such as PCGS or NGC it is the same. the forum as a whole tends to agree that(or at least has expressed as much over the time I have been here) what the TPG's do by "grading" coins is to essentially rank and price them. that tells me that over the years they are getting a better idea of where a particular coin should rank in the population report. in other words what was an MS65 20 years ago is quite likely an MS66 now that 50K of that coin type have been examined.
it doesn't rub me one way or the other, I just try to adapt and navigate the Hobby the best I can.
Bill--I agree with your comments 100% and I have the same reaction when I see an NGC graded coin and I, too, am sorry to say that. It wasn't always that way.
EagleEye--maybe you are correct. Maybe it is time to have this discussion. I, for one, was thinking of your recent article on how gradeflation hurts the market, when I was reading Salzberg's letter. However, the article is blatantly self-serving and inaccurate in that NGC is worse, or looser than PCGS. However, it may be that the entire coin market needs to look to the utter lack of any fixed, recognizable, objective, time-tested grading standards. Those don't exist today....the standard floats or adjusts according to the market. To me, that is simply ridiculous. Even CAC is not immune to the market pressures since CAC's model is to buy coins it CACs. So, if CAC's monetary stability changes or takes a downward turn, it stands to reason that CAC might be tempted to CAC fewer coins. I'm not saying I have seen that, since I don't buy many CAC'd coins, but the risk is there.
Tom
I do believe it since i was the one that wrote it
I understand the evolution of grading standards, but it doesn't mean I have to participate on the "buy side" of this new world. It's been a learning experience over the last couple of years on the "sell side" of the process. I now see the light, and I'm taking appropriate steps to minimize leaving too much money on the table for the crack out crowd to reap.
I still agree with grades that I have assigned Photo Seals to 20 years ago.
I> @EagleEye said:
It's one thing to agree with a grade. Another to assign one fresh
EagleEye. Thanks for posting your 2015 article. Very informative and insightful.
I still agree with grades that I have assigned Photo Seals to 20 years ago.
the point would be to send those same coins to you randomly at some time in the future to see what you'd assign. THAT would be objective.
I cannot address the market as a whole but can tell you that New Orleans Type One $20 coins in PCGS holders command a premium relative to NGC. I have crossed a few NGC coins to PCGS - same grade. I think this article is a response to the fact the PCGS coins command a premium and NGC does not like getting back empty holders that once held coins they graded. I would be interested how many PCGS coins are crossed over to NGC holders unless an upgrade is involved. An example - take a look at the number of $20 1850 O coins PCGS has graded relative to NGC. NGC has graded three or four as low end unc and PCGS has never graded one higher than 58. In the au range NGC has graded many more as au relative to PCGS, which is a good indicator of which TPG is more strict. I think pop numbers for rare coins are overstated and vis versa for high pop coins as many are sold raw. If several 5C 1912 S nickels entered the market and were graded because the price was high what would you expect to happen no matter who graded them? The ultimate test is what the market puts a premium and NGC does not like the results. A few graph, charts, etc. just don't override what the market dictates.
The bottom line is these statements about PCGS are just an excuse to do what he wanted to do a couple of years ago when he banned PCGS coins from his foreign coin registries. He wanted to stop any more PCGS coins from going on his registry because some so many of them were there already.
This is just marketing, and he made the mistake of pushing out a falsehood to support his actions. This latest email is just a doubling down of what he said in December., A lot of us didn't buy it then, and we aren't buying it now. I'd love to show him some of the stuff I looked at the Fort Lauderdale FUN bourse. Even he might have been shocked buy it.
There was an 1839-C quarter eagle in an NGC AU-58 holder that had been been cleaned with a huge scratch on the face. It was NOT just the struck through that is sometimes seen on this date and mint mark combination. I don't who the finalizer was one that one, but whoever he was, he missed a big one.
I've got a 1904 $20 that I bought raw which came with an NGC AU58 cert. It was just slabbed at PCGS as MS61. I had another $20 in the submission that I thought for sure was a slider, it also came back 61. I was surprised, and I'm not complaining.
Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but all the graphs in the parent article were high-MS grade (and mostly) moderns. Does it really surprise anyone that there'd be quibbling over what constitutes an MS64 vs a 65, or a 66 vs a 67, not to mention + grades? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I saw a shift with all grading services 8 years ago, stopped buying coins, and happily moved my focus fully toward exonumia never looking back. Although it's silly for a grading service to point a finger at another as if one service got loose the rest went right along. Just as an example try doing a $10 Indian set in recent AU58 and compare todays graded coins to those found 10+ years ago... It's like night and day.
I think the main driver of price declines that Mark highlights is not overgrading or increasing populations but using the lower prices that overgraded coins garner in public auction as the real value for all coins. This is a recent phenomenon. It is now super easy to track auction prices and the overgraded junk is factored equally with the correctly graded coins by most everyone.
Example: You have a Grey sheet price of $1,000 for a specific coin in MS65 and a MS64 is worth $500. When a MS64 undeservedly upgrades to MS65 and is now considered overgraded. What will it sell for at auction? Probably $800. Now the grey sheet will see that and lower the price to this new market data. You look at Coinfacts and you will see that $800 datapont as well. The next time a MS65 shows up, what will you be willing to pay? $800 or $1,000?
As a bit of a spreadsheet and data nerd, I began to look into some of the pop comparisons offered.
While one might presume that pops of modern coins will continue to rise as more are pulled from shoe boxes and submitted, older coins don't work that way, unless a shipwreck is discovered. For example, with the last inventories from the Central America now available, 1857-S double eagle pops may double.
The 13-S lib nickel numbers caught my eye. Interesting coins, but not something about which I'm knowlegable. One email to someone in the know, gave me the word "hoard," and the mention earlier in this thread of two rolls, is huge.
I have two questions.
First, if one found that sort of hoard, wouldn't it be smarter to leak pieces into the marketplace, one at a time?
Second, and with all due respect, one must presume that Mr. Salzburg has this knowledge, and if that's the case, isn't this an inappropriate example?
Inquiring minds...
EC
One fact is that grading is so subjective.
Grading is not a science, it is an act.
Although top grading companies try to keep a standard it is impossible, because of humans.
The best part of grading is to eliminate fakes!
Who keeps hitting reload non stop?
As there's no way there's 3,200 folks reading this thread.
Wow, thread of the year so far, congrats!
Couple more thoughts: As far as things like a 1995W ASE or 1974S quarter in proof-70DCAM, maybe after looking at enough examples, they say, "well, these are about as nice as they come, that one was a 70, so here's another 70, and another, and another...
ANd, as far as something like, "There was an 1839-C quarter eagle in an NGC AU-58 holder that had been been cleaned with a huge scratch on the face. It was NOT just the struck through that is sometimes seen on this date and mint mark combination. I don't who the finalizer was one that one, but whoever he was, he missed a big one.",
that might very well be termed "gradeflation" but maybe it's just net-grading an otherwise MS6x coin for the problems. After all, what would be your net grade (how "huge" was the scratch?) AU55? 50? Certainly not 30 or 20, was it?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I disagree, in part, with this. Grading is somewhat subjective, and differences exist, but it is not impossible, or even that difficult to set an objective standard and then try to stick to it. Ask any old-timer. Many still grade the way they did 30 years ago. The simple fact that grades have been inflating and that standards have been relaxing--in one direction--upward--is the best argument that grade slip is intentional and directed. It can even be reversed, in theory. That is different than the normal differences that one will encounter when you ask 2 people to assign a grade to something. That part of grading is an art and not a science. The other part-the part that allows the market to influence grades, is not an art and ignores objectivity in a way that I have never seen in any numerical standard that I can think of--though there may be some. Is diamond grading subject to the same problem? Cards? I really don't know, but in coins, it is a problem that has been created by the industry itself.
Tom
My take on the article and this discussion is that I am thankful that I turned most of my collecting interest to foreign coins several years ago. I purchased 9 world coins at NYINC, none of which were slabbed or will be submitted by me.
I agree with Rick on a different note as I specialize more in better Circulated grades. The grading services are allowing coins through now that would not straight grade before.
A recent experience... I had a choice original VF30 offered for $525. I get an email comparing it to a lower priced XF40 that should never have been allowed in a holder for $445. I just happened to have a nicer XF40 that should have never holdered also and sent him pictures. He loved it and I sold it to him for $435! Some people do buy plastic.
Unfortunately the Salzberg rant and this discussion do more to hurt the hobby than to bolster it. Not only is grading subjective, but opinions can and do change which explains why the same coin is resubmitted multiple times until it is housed in the holder and at the grade sought by the submitter. And that is just one part of what makes the coin market. There has been so much talk about standards and grade inflation but absolutely no talk about coins. Why is that? Has this really become the hobby of plastic, llabels and stickers instead of what is in the plastic?
Let's talk about coins for a moment. Coins within a series are just not created equal as the quality can very significantly- just compare a 1904 Morgan in MS65 to an 1881-s in 65. Do you really expect the quality to be the same? Clearly they will not be and the 1881-s will be held to a higher standard. Even if you take two coins that are both graded 65, one may be better than the other but both could be within the 65 range. So instead of looking at the actual coins, collectors look at plastic and stickers as guidance and complain about standards. Grading is not a math problem but collectors seem to treat what is intended to be an opinion as if it is exact and absolute.
I am tired of this... The discussion needs to focus on the coin, the series and what makes a coin stand out from other similar coins besides the plastic and stickers which seem have most everyone spellbound as if that is more significant. And if that is more significant, than what is it that you collect... Plastic with labels or coins?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Great thread. I have only been back in numismatics since 2007 so I don't have the perspective many of you have looking back 20, 30, even 40 years and watching things evolve.
I can say there seems to be a large number of slabbed coins in the marketplace that appear overgraded. Perhaps this Salzberg's article will help address gradeflation but more likely it will bring increased attention to the problem without consequences.
Thanks to all who have posted and shared their wisdom.
So I guess I can expect the two submissions I have in New Port Beach right now to get the shaft to keep in check the "gradeflation". Thanks you weenies!!!
Couldn't agree with you more. Good post. Best post on this thread for sure.
Problem with this example is that it is very hard to grade by images, one needs to see the both coins in hand, and preferably side by side to draw a comparison......... Just putting images of two different coins taken by two different photographers and trying to draw comparisons makes no sense.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
At least for the present though, NGC totally dominates the grading for world coins. Check out the auction archives from Heritage for world coins, for example. NGC holdered coins are in this archive in a ratio of 3 to 1 over PCGS holdered coins........ So is NGC the preferred grader of world coins and do they have a better reputation for consistency in this arena? I have no experience with world coins so I have no idea.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
The comparison and point he is making is clear as day imo. The photos are good enough to show that the top coin is not a 69.
The pop boys are prevailing and always will I think. This is not "exactly" what I said in the below interview dated April 2, 1996. What I actually said was dealers not investors, and the dealers I was referring to was not the experienced guys but the new guys who only know how to ask "whats the pop"?
In addition to serving all ranges of numismatic specialties, Pilitowski is a strong proponent of numismatic education. He's fighting what he calls "pop boys," a new breed of numismatic investors who are in it solely for the money.
http://www.usrarecoininvestments.com/about_us/education.htm
This is more and more reason to do your research !
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Maybe just a stupid thought or question, but could the services scan an image of every coin they see and enter it into a database much like fingerprints? Would everyone be unique, and if so, they could then scan new coins submitted and know they had seen it in the past and how it was graded.
This is whats known as a "secret shopper" approach.
As a businessman with 30+ years in the professional world, this seems like an act of desperation on the part of NGC to me. Try to disparage the market giant in the hopes of creating an image that we are "competitors" rather than a clear #1 and #2. It's much like Coke and Pepsi to me. There is one dominant market leader and a wannabe with a smaller but devoted following. I take it as a marketing ploy to be honest. I used to equally buy PCGS and NGC coins but in recent years buy almost exclusively those graded by PCGS. In my opinion, the grades are consistently more accurate, the values are higher, and the liquidity is better. In short, PCGS is the Coca-Cola of coins. From a certain standpoint I can see why NGC would try to attack PCGS, but frankly, why try to call them out on the very issue many of us have with NGC. I see it as a poorly constructed strategy that won't help NGC gain a single point of market share.
Not a chance without seeing in hand.............
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
As long as they have the world grading market domination, they are not going down in flames. But this was obviously a poorly handled way of trying to regain market share for US coins and I agree it is not good for anyone in numismatics.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I agree with the 3:1 NGC:PCGS ratio for world coins PRIOR to October 2016. PCGS signed a 5 year mega-deal with Chinese Mint over the summer and started furiously grading coins in October. They did maybe 500,000 Chinese coins last quarter alone. To keep that in perspective, the December quarter is the slowest and PCGS US probably only did 400,000 coins. If this rate keeps up, you will quickly see complete and total WORLD DOMINATION by PCGS over NGC.
Now combine that with the PCGS US Modern bulk pricing change which started last January and brought PCGS and NGC even in Modern coins and NGC is in a world of hurt (PCGS owns the Vintage market 70/30). NGC previously had a 70/30 lead in Modern coins.
CLCT just announced a $10M line of credit to keep the pressure on NGC.
The Board of NGC probably met over the last week or two and discussed last year's results which showed this new trend. Salzberg probably got no year end bonus and most likely dressed down. Prior to last year PCGS and NGC were #1 and #1A. Now NGC is a distant #2. How do you let that happen as a CEO in such a short time? The article was his act of desperation. My outside opinion of course.
I want to see these 13-S lib nickels!
I would certainly agree on releasing a large number into the market slowly.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
That is amusingly unlikely.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This is also amusingly unlikely.
Latin American Collection
I disagree. The CLCT CEO and CFO got reduced bonuses last year as profit margins decreased with the price war. As Willis said, PCGS is open. Everything is published in SEC documents and/or on their website. Executive bonuses were down. Why would you believe that the NGC CEO would not have been financially "punished" as well? I will even go out on a bigger limb and say that if NGC allows the deterioration to continue this year on the same scale, he will be sacked this time next year. The CLCT execs are probably feeling pressure to get margins up as well. If I had to chose, I would much rather be in CLCT's position.
CLCT stock was up over 40% last year including the dividend. Not much more than the small cap average. If NGC were a public company, it probably would have well underperformed that average.
While images can lie - some marks on a coin disappear with the light at certain angles, the NGC coin is over graded in this example. That's a fact and not an opinion.
If you cannot see the difference between these two coins I suggest you take a grading seminar and only purchase slabs after you have asked half a dozen dealers their opinion about the coin in the slab you are buying. For a start, 1 or 2 miniscule contact marks (none in PFA) can be found on a typical MS-69 coin. Usually, you'll need to look to find them. The NGC coin has at least eight that are easily seen.
Finally, we can post images of over graded, under graded, and correctly graded coins slabbed by EVERY TPGS. NGC lost this comparison.
Great thinking out of the box...This has been suggested as far back as 1972 before grading was routinely done at ANACS. The images were to be used to identify die struck fakes but they would also be useful for the internal grading record kept (along with the coin's weight) to help ID the coin if it were ever lost and to protect the service from any claim of switching.
Your "new" idea was suggested again to the owner of a major TPGS in the late 1990's to accomplish exactly what you point out. With a system such as this the grade assigned would never be changed unless an error was originally made. Back then, grading standards were NOT EVOLVING in any significant way. The person who proposed this joked that it would appear to be just like actual "computer grading" (Compugrade had failed years before).
Today, this system could be put into practice for "better" coins with little effort. Downside is that revenue from resubmissions would dry up. I've been told that the owner of a TPGS gave a presentation where he said something like: "Any coin worth sending in for grading once is worth sending in again!"
@spacehayduke said: Not a chance without seeing in hand.............
IMHO, YOU TOO SHOULD FOLLOW MY ADVICE IN THE POST ABOVE.
My YouTube Channel
**At least for the present though, NGC totally dominates the grading for world coins. **
looking at some of the additional grading the PCGS has begun doing in the past several years it seems clear "they" have a business plan to make inroads in areas where NGC had the lions share of all TPG's. Exonumia and World are the places where PCGS either did very little or none at all, now that is changing.