Grading may have been cyclical in past, but it ain't happening in a downward direction any time soon. With the grading guarantee there is no way MS67/66/65's are getting a downgrade on reconsideration. The grading game for the TPG's and their business model is a one-way street. It has to reach a peak at some point unless we start grading coins MS 75.
@specialist said:
think about this-with all crack out dealers there are what can they submitting today? only retreads and crap. very little fresh coins are coming out. you don't think that helps move the line?
please don't tell me collectors do not push for their coins to be upgraded-they are actually the BIGGER problems on better coins. look at Pogue-world class coins, world class maxed out. if the collection wasn't every coin would have cac'd. don't think they didn't push for upgrades-just like a guy who owns 80S Morgans wants his reward too. a push here and there adds up
yes, there still are a few under graded coins out there. but with all the good stuff gone, you see mostly coins like this 77S TD. so we think less of grading standards being healthy. today that is mostly what the grading services see over and over again.
You make a good point about the dearth of fresh coins taking its toll on standards.
The comment about collectors pushing for upgrades being a big problem is a little confusing. Are you talking about the usual crackout game, or lobbying, or something else? And how can it possibly be on the same scale as with dealers?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
collectors-especially the big collectors all push for their grades. Not knocking them but everyone-Duckor, Pogue, Simpson to name a few ALL had BIG coins they lobbied on.
Actually the ONLY big collector I know of who never resubmitted-Gardner. Many of his coins were upgraded any way.
Having the big guys inflate the big coins is worse to me then 100 smaller collectors pushing for 10 coins each. these are our show case collections to world.
Your correct, I am not part of the big picture, as you apparently are. Your logic appears to be if your comments are correct then mine must be wrong and you conclude that I'm in denial.
Speaking as a little veteran collector I disagree with the broad statements you made previously. I am a realist and I am very aware of the problems you discuss. However I refuse to accept your negative outlook for numismatics.
The reasons why CAC exists have been discussed here many many times. JA is working to maintain CAC grading standards and I appreciate all he has done for numismatics and the knowledge he has shared with me.
I don't see anything wrong with the big collectors lobbying for their big coins. The final decision on all grades is made by the grading services. You can lobby all you want, they can and will grade it what they want. I hope you'll agree that a nice coin is a nice coin regardless of the assigned grade. Prices have always taken rarity and quality in consideration.
The most important problem is the lack of consistency and the changing standards.
We all don't play at the same level, but most of us are complicit...we wink-wink nudge-nudge "agree" with grades on 1804 $ and 1913 nickels, and maybe 16-D dimes and 1901-S quarters...then it's a slippery slope. We know what we are, we're just negotiating the price.
How often do you hear regarding a coin that has been "gradeflationed" from ms64 to ms65- WOW! this coin is a stunning piece but should not have graded ms65 rather ms64+++++???
Probably not many times. What you will hear is how the heck did this ugly piece go ms65 its a 64 at best???.
I know when I grade and see tens of thousands of coins I will see many liner coins that could go either way. Certain coins would look really really really nice in an ms64 holder and ok but still nice in an ms65.
These are the ones I would consider giving a ms65 to. A coin that maybe perhaps has an extra tick in the wrong place making it a 64.99999+ but nice eye appeal so therefor its given a ms65. Or at least this is the easy situation where a + is called for.
What I dont like seeing are the low eye appeal coins with lots of marks that should every time grade ms64 get into an ms65 holder. This is a standard that should 99.9999% be consistent. Unfortunately, its coins like these I believe that are doing the bigger damage.
10000 Lakes, Thanks for the informative Silver Dollar Pop Data.
1) Does this include both PCGS & NGC pops?
2) Would be interesting to see a similar breakdown of ProofSeated, Trade & Morgan Dollars in the PR-62-64 Grade ranges.
====================================
@10000lakes said:
Here is some pop data comparing the pops of Jan 2005 to current.
Generally the older series of dollars have a smaller % increase in pops than Morgans, so you got that going for you
Seated dollars (no motto) all dates, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
MS 64 pops went from 199 to 312
MS 65 pops went from 48 to 55
MS 66 pops went from 7 to 14
MS 67 pops stayed the same at 2
Seated dollars (with motto) all dates, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
MS 64 pops went from 125 to 181
MS 65 pops went from 31 to 28
MS 66 pops went from 10 to 15
MS 67 pops stayed the same at 2
Trade dollars all dates, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
MS 64 pops went from 731 to 1162
MS 65 pops went from 97 to 171
MS 66 pops stayed the same at 56
MS 67 pops went from 8 to 7
MS 68 pops stayed the same at 3
Morgan dollars all dates, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
MS 65 pops went from 243,843 to 400,339
MS 66 pops went from 48,277 to 89,170
MS 67 pops went from 5,528 to 11,734
MS 68 pops went from 328 to 655
MS 69 pops stayed the same at 8
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
As one of the “Old Timers” who began collecting 50 years ago, prior to TPGS Certified Numerically Graded plastic slabs, here’s my perspective.
There are different goals, objectives and priorities between Collectors enjoying Numismatics as a Hobby/Pastime & Dealers maximizing profit as a Business. Some of those goals are aligned & some aren’t.
When I first started collecting Type Coins & PL/DMPL Morgan Dollars back in the early 1970’s there were only 3 Descriptive grading categories of Mint Sate Coins (UNC/BU, Choice BU & Gem BU) and one Almost Uncirculated (AU) category.
Then Numeric Grading was introduced as an additional descriptor for the 3 above-mentioned grades: MS-60 = UNC/BU, MS-63 = Choice BU & MS-65 = Gem BU. Back then the adjective Brilliant indicated Unspotted & Untoned Superior Eye Appeal & Valuation than “Tarnished” or Toned coins.
As an example the US Govt GSA CC Morgan Dollar Sales beginning in 1970 included 2 descriptive quality categories on their plastic govt issued slabs - One Premium Group marked Uncirculated and a Lesser Quality Group including “Tarnished”, Toned, or other problematic coins without the word Uncirculated on the govt slab. — Back then Brilliant White coins were preferred and valued more than Toned coins.
TPGS Certified Grading was introduced to standardize wildly varying grading standards and to promote Investing in Coins. I suggest the following excellent Scott Travers Oct 1997 Article posted on PCGS’ web site for reference. https://www.pcgs.com/news/wall-streets-move-to-rare-coins
Since the introduction of the TPGS’s in the late 1980’s numismatics has experienced huge price increases and price fluctuations in some of the higher graded coins, focusing much Business attention to them as a vehicle to potentially make large profits certifying Choice to Gem examples, and then Cracking and/or Upgrading Certified coins perceived to be conservatively or undergraded.
Just as the Wall Street Financial marketplace profits from equity price volatility and resulting stock share & bond, etc volume increases, many participants in the Rare Coin Marketplace (Dealers & Collectors) can profit from both Coin Price Volatility & Evolving (Changing) Grading Standards.
As a collector, I prefer to focus my attention on affordable Highly Eye-Appealing, Well-Struck, Lustrous Examples (some Toned & Brilliant) that appeal to me. If they appear undergraded I see that as a buying opportunity - not to crack and flip them for quick profit, but to add them to my collection.
I'd much rather have a fully-struck lustrous ”Gem” AU-58 depicting more of the coin's design, than a weakly struck technically Mint State coin exhibiting less detail (Ref: 1892-CC Morgan Dollar Image below).
Finally, Registry Sets have very significantly affected Numismatics, it can be argued for better or to its detriment. IMO the primary reason that an MS-70 or Proof 70 DCAM Modern coin sells for huge multiples over it’s MS-69 counterpart is based on increased collector demand to compete in Registry Sets. That’s fine if the collector wishes to spend the multiples of money on marginally incremental technical grading - however, that’s not why I collect coins. But to each his own, and if that’s how others enjoy their collecting, similar to competing in Fantasy Football that’s totally up to them.
Thanks for reading this long thread. I’m looking forward to others’ thoughts and comments on the points that I’ve raised.
1892-CC PCGS AU-58 Morgan Dollar
Photos courtesy of Mike Printz - Harlan Berk Numismatics
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
@Stuart
It does not include NGC pops, I don't have any of their old pop reports.
I ddin't do the lower grades but it looked they they also went up aprox 30 - 40%
Seated dollars (no motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 367 to 443
PR 65 pops went from 96 to 152
PR 66 pops went from 27 to 51
PR 67 pops went from 6 to 11
Seated dollars (with motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 527 to 658
PR 65 pops went from 156 to 210
PR 66 pops went from 36 to 56
PR 67 pops went from 5 to 10
PR 68 pops stayed the same at 1
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Trade dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,042 to 1,426
PR 65 pops went from 372 to 489
PR 66 pops went from 167 to 225
PR 67 pops went from 37 to 64
PR 68 pops went from 3 to 4
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Morgan dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,802 to 2,348
PR 65 pops went from 701 to 934
PR 66 pops went from 542 to 779
PR 67 pops went from 227 to 341
PR 68 pops went from 48 to 90
PR 69 pops went from 1 to 6
we all complain about gradeflation, none of us have stopped playing the game. we all still submit. its become a culture to everyone
It's only a "culture" for those who require slabbing to verify what their coins are worth. They would be much more illiquid otherwise. Failing to get them into the holders they deserve to be in for the current market is leaving yourself short in the event you suddenly pass away or need to liquidate in short order for emergency reasons....but your local dealers will love you for it....lol.
I know I didn't want my family having to worry about upgrading coins in the event I passed away or trying to figure out what they were worth if left raw. And if they failed to attempt upgrades on coins purchased 10-30 years earlier, lots of money could be left on the table (20-50%). For that reason I went through the first upgrading cycle in 1997-1998 with many others in order to keep up with the market. And then did it again around 2006-2008. As TDN has suggested, it's about every 10 yrs. One can choose not to do this and just roll the dice when it's time to cash out. Continual slabbing/re-evaluation is a culture that has been "forced" on us to keep up where significant dollars are at stake. The CAC beanology is just another angle on the same subject. Ignore it at your own peril.
@10000lakes said: @Stuart
It does not include NGC pops, I don't have any of their old pop reports.
I ddin't do the lower grades but it looked they they also went up aprox 30 - 40%
Seated dollars (no motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 367 to 443
PR 65 pops went from 96 to 152
PR 66 pops went from 27 to 51
PR 67 pops went from 6 to 11
Seated dollars (with motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 527 to 658
PR 65 pops went from 156 to 210
PR 66 pops went from 36 to 56
PR 67 pops went from 5 to 10
PR 68 pops stayed the same at 1
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Trade dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,042 to 1,426
PR 65 pops went from 372 to 489
PR 66 pops went from 167 to 225
PR 67 pops went from 37 to 64
PR 68 pops went from 3 to 4
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Morgan dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,802 to 2,348
PR 65 pops went from 701 to 934
PR 66 pops went from 542 to 779
PR 67 pops went from 227 to 341
PR 68 pops went from 48 to 90
PR 69 pops went from 1 to 6
If you don't mind me asking, where do you get this data?
Well said rr & Crypto. "Continual slabbing/re-evaluation is a culture that has been "forced" on us to keep up where significant dollars are at stake." The key word which he highlighted is forced, I'm convinced this is due to what I consider loosening and or changing of the grading standards. "Grades are opinions" an excellent reminder for all.
Currently we have four choices, personally I've used a combination of #2 & #3.
Keep your coins raw.
Re-grade your coins periodically and or before you sell.
Leave your coins in their old slabs and utilize the CAC bean.
@10000lakes said: @Stuart
It does not include NGC pops, I don't have any of their old pop reports.
I ddin't do the lower grades but it looked they they also went up aprox 30 - 40%
Seated dollars (no motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 367 to 443
PR 65 pops went from 96 to 152
PR 66 pops went from 27 to 51
PR 67 pops went from 6 to 11
Seated dollars (with motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 527 to 658
PR 65 pops went from 156 to 210
PR 66 pops went from 36 to 56
PR 67 pops went from 5 to 10
PR 68 pops stayed the same at 1
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Trade dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,042 to 1,426
PR 65 pops went from 372 to 489
PR 66 pops went from 167 to 225
PR 67 pops went from 37 to 64
PR 68 pops went from 3 to 4
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Morgan dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,802 to 2,348
PR 65 pops went from 701 to 934
PR 66 pops went from 542 to 779
PR 67 pops went from 227 to 341
PR 68 pops went from 48 to 90
PR 69 pops went from 1 to 6
It would be helpful if you added the % of the total pop for each grade.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Currently we have four choices, personally I've used a combination of #2 & #3.
Keep your coins raw.
Re-grade your coins periodically and or before you sell.
Leave your coins in their old slabs and utilize the CAC bean.
Do nothing, leave everything as you bought it.
Yet, what would you do if you had old slabs that are green beaned, but you know they would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration? I think you'd likely choose #4. Correct?
@totally "If you don't mind me asking, where do you get this data?"
I have a hardcopy of the Jan 2005 PCGS pop report and got the current numbers from the online pop report.
@MrEureka "It would be helpful if you added the % of the total pop for each grade."
What's that old saying about "don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
@Catbert said:
“Yet, what would you do if you had old slabs that are green beaned, but you know they would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration? I think you'd likely choose #4. Correct?”
Sure, that would be great, if you know your heirs will find an educated buyer willing to pay full current value for undergraded coins, someone who sees perceived value equal to or greater than yours.
Alternatively, you could be better assured your coins reach full value and the broadest market when sold, by periodically keeping them properly represented by their label.
And here is a question about changing standards - EAC grading, changing, or have they remained consistent? If so, does that mean the EAC vs TPG grade for such coins has changed in the past deccade - meaning the TPG grades going up and more discrepant from the EAC grade? Where does CAC fit in for coppers? I have heard EACers say that CAC is not very good for coppers............. I don't do CAC based coppers any more so just thinking out loud with no base of argument either way.
@specialist said:
as I said, it is now our culture to upgrade
But we wouldn't have to if the TPG's didn't give out upgrades and held standards tight since say 1997. I'd have no reason to ever resubmit if standards stayed the same. I'd rather keep the coin in the older holder. The only other time I resubmit is when I think I was short changed on the grade I received. Many times I'd buy a raw coin at major auction paying MS65 money, only to get a 64 back. Then I'm forced to keep trying until my patience wears out.
Case in point my former 1838-0 dime...the first to ever grade MS65. And that was by pure luck thanks to PCGS. The coin was bought raw for solid MS64 money ($7500) at a 1988 Stack's auction. It came back NGC MS64 which meant I might be able to make 5% on the coin. Not a problem. But I honestly felt it had a fair shot to 65 being exceptionally clean from marks. So I tried PCGS. MS63! Now it was worth $3,750 on paper. I had no choice but no resubmit to NGC to try and get back to even. Nope. Came back NGC MS65 - pop 1 - finest graded. Value of $15K-$18K. And it was an easy sale sight-unseen over the phone. I'd have stopped on the coin if NGC 64'd it the 2nd time.
Another time NGC hammered a raw submission of mine with grades that were 1 pt lower across the board. Almost everything went back again. Most went up a point. One of them went up 2 points which was a surprise (1882 half from MS65 to MS67). That was rather fortunate since I had paid MS66+ money for that coin at auction and a 65 grade was a burial. The TPG culture "guides" us to action.
Yes, I do own some old slabs that are green beaned, that I think would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration that have not been submitted. At some point before selling I'll make the decision whether to resubmit or leave them as is. I love the old holders and respect the bean, but in some cases especially when the spread is large a one point upgrade might be the best option to maximize the prices realized.
Yes.
Why potentially limit your value in an old holder with a bean?
One can love the old holder and the bean but don’t ignore the risks.
One can hate the gradeflation and the upgrading game it causes, but don’t ignore the risks.
Be realistic and prudent with investment coins.
The old holder of an undergraded coin may be lovable, but, if grades represent pricing, old holders give sellers little more than an emotional tie to something forgotten, and likely give the seller’s heirs less than that.
And, old holders can possibly give a buyer/dealer room to undercut.
And the bean on an undergraded coin?
The bean lost all its real value and meaning the moment gradeflation made the coin upgradeable.
Remember, the bean was awarded to the coin, confirming a grade that no longer is a true and market-accepted representation of your coin.
After the coin becomes upgradeable, the bean maybe still can provide a boost to the ego of the seller, but that’s all. There’s no ego value to the heirs, and the bean no longer adds value to the coin.
If a coin is undergraded, any smart buyer will ignore it’s valueless obsolete bean.
Be careful not to allow love nor ego to limit the value of the coin/investment.
Comments
Grading may have been cyclical in past, but it ain't happening in a downward direction any time soon. With the grading guarantee there is no way MS67/66/65's are getting a downgrade on reconsideration. The grading game for the TPG's and their business model is a one-way street. It has to reach a peak at some point unless we start grading coins MS 75.
You make a good point about the dearth of fresh coins taking its toll on standards.
The comment about collectors pushing for upgrades being a big problem is a little confusing. Are you talking about the usual crackout game, or lobbying, or something else? And how can it possibly be on the same scale as with dealers?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
shish
you are not part of the big picture like I am. my comments are 100% correct.
if what i said was not true, cac would never exist. we all wouldn't run to resubmit every old sticker coin we find... you are in serious denial
collectors-especially the big collectors all push for their grades. Not knocking them but everyone-Duckor, Pogue, Simpson to name a few ALL had BIG coins they lobbied on.
Actually the ONLY big collector I know of who never resubmitted-Gardner. Many of his coins were upgraded any way.
Having the big guys inflate the big coins is worse to me then 100 smaller collectors pushing for 10 coins each. these are our show case collections to world.
Your correct, I am not part of the big picture, as you apparently are. Your logic appears to be if your comments are correct then mine must be wrong and you conclude that I'm in denial.
Speaking as a little veteran collector I disagree with the broad statements you made previously. I am a realist and I am very aware of the problems you discuss. However I refuse to accept your negative outlook for numismatics.
The reasons why CAC exists have been discussed here many many times. JA is working to maintain CAC grading standards and I appreciate all he has done for numismatics and the knowledge he has shared with me.
I don't see anything wrong with the big collectors lobbying for their big coins. The final decision on all grades is made by the grading services. You can lobby all you want, they can and will grade it what they want. I hope you'll agree that a nice coin is a nice coin regardless of the assigned grade. Prices have always taken rarity and quality in consideration.
The most important problem is the lack of consistency and the changing standards.
We all don't play at the same level, but most of us are complicit...we wink-wink nudge-nudge "agree" with grades on 1804 $ and 1913 nickels, and maybe 16-D dimes and 1901-S quarters...then it's a slippery slope. We know what we are, we're just negotiating the price.
How often do you hear regarding a coin that has been "gradeflationed" from ms64 to ms65- WOW! this coin is a stunning piece but should not have graded ms65 rather ms64+++++???
Probably not many times. What you will hear is how the heck did this ugly piece go ms65 its a 64 at best???.
I know when I grade and see tens of thousands of coins I will see many liner coins that could go either way. Certain coins would look really really really nice in an ms64 holder and ok but still nice in an ms65.
These are the ones I would consider giving a ms65 to. A coin that maybe perhaps has an extra tick in the wrong place making it a 64.99999+ but nice eye appeal so therefor its given a ms65. Or at least this is the easy situation where a + is called for.
What I dont like seeing are the low eye appeal coins with lots of marks that should every time grade ms64 get into an ms65 holder. This is a standard that should 99.9999% be consistent. Unfortunately, its coins like these I believe that are doing the bigger damage.
10000 Lakes, Thanks for the informative Silver Dollar Pop Data.
1) Does this include both PCGS & NGC pops?
2) Would be interesting to see a similar breakdown of Proof Seated, Trade & Morgan Dollars in the PR-62-64 Grade ranges.
====================================
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Very interesting thread.
As one of the “Old Timers” who began collecting 50 years ago, prior to TPGS Certified Numerically Graded plastic slabs, here’s my perspective.
There are different goals, objectives and priorities between Collectors enjoying Numismatics as a Hobby/Pastime & Dealers maximizing profit as a Business. Some of those goals are aligned & some aren’t.
When I first started collecting Type Coins & PL/DMPL Morgan Dollars back in the early 1970’s there were only 3 Descriptive grading categories of Mint Sate Coins (UNC/BU, Choice BU & Gem BU) and one Almost Uncirculated (AU) category.
Then Numeric Grading was introduced as an additional descriptor for the 3 above-mentioned grades: MS-60 = UNC/BU, MS-63 = Choice BU & MS-65 = Gem BU. Back then the adjective Brilliant indicated Unspotted & Untoned Superior Eye Appeal & Valuation than “Tarnished” or Toned coins.
As an example the US Govt GSA CC Morgan Dollar Sales beginning in 1970 included 2 descriptive quality categories on their plastic govt issued slabs - One Premium Group marked Uncirculated and a Lesser Quality Group including “Tarnished”, Toned, or other problematic coins without the word Uncirculated on the govt slab. — Back then Brilliant White coins were preferred and valued more than Toned coins.
TPGS Certified Grading was introduced to standardize wildly varying grading standards and to promote Investing in Coins. I suggest the following excellent Scott Travers Oct 1997 Article posted on PCGS’ web site for reference. https://www.pcgs.com/news/wall-streets-move-to-rare-coins
Since the introduction of the TPGS’s in the late 1980’s numismatics has experienced huge price increases and price fluctuations in some of the higher graded coins, focusing much Business attention to them as a vehicle to potentially make large profits certifying Choice to Gem examples, and then Cracking and/or Upgrading Certified coins perceived to be conservatively or undergraded.
Just as the Wall Street Financial marketplace profits from equity price volatility and resulting stock share & bond, etc volume increases, many participants in the Rare Coin Marketplace (Dealers & Collectors) can profit from both Coin Price Volatility & Evolving (Changing) Grading Standards.
As a collector, I prefer to focus my attention on affordable Highly Eye-Appealing, Well-Struck, Lustrous Examples (some Toned & Brilliant) that appeal to me. If they appear undergraded I see that as a buying opportunity - not to crack and flip them for quick profit, but to add them to my collection.
I'd much rather have a fully-struck lustrous ”Gem” AU-58 depicting more of the coin's design, than a weakly struck technically Mint State coin exhibiting less detail (Ref: 1892-CC Morgan Dollar Image below).
Finally, Registry Sets have very significantly affected Numismatics, it can be argued for better or to its detriment. IMO the primary reason that an MS-70 or Proof 70 DCAM Modern coin sells for huge multiples over it’s MS-69 counterpart is based on increased collector demand to compete in Registry Sets. That’s fine if the collector wishes to spend the multiples of money on marginally incremental technical grading - however, that’s not why I collect coins. But to each his own, and if that’s how others enjoy their collecting, similar to competing in Fantasy Football that’s totally up to them.
Thanks for reading this long thread. I’m looking forward to others’ thoughts and comments on the points that I’ve raised.
1892-CC PCGS AU-58 Morgan Dollar
Photos courtesy of Mike Printz - Harlan Berk Numismatics
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
@Stuart
It does not include NGC pops, I don't have any of their old pop reports.
I ddin't do the lower grades but it looked they they also went up aprox 30 - 40%
Seated dollars (no motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 367 to 443
PR 65 pops went from 96 to 152
PR 66 pops went from 27 to 51
PR 67 pops went from 6 to 11
Seated dollars (with motto) all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 527 to 658
PR 65 pops went from 156 to 210
PR 66 pops went from 36 to 56
PR 67 pops went from 5 to 10
PR 68 pops stayed the same at 1
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Trade dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,042 to 1,426
PR 65 pops went from 372 to 489
PR 66 pops went from 167 to 225
PR 67 pops went from 37 to 64
PR 68 pops went from 3 to 4
PR 69 pops went from 0 to 1
Morgan dollars all dates and designations, plus grades included in the overall grade total.
PR 64 pops went from 1,802 to 2,348
PR 65 pops went from 701 to 934
PR 66 pops went from 542 to 779
PR 67 pops went from 227 to 341
PR 68 pops went from 48 to 90
PR 69 pops went from 1 to 6
It's only a "culture" for those who require slabbing to verify what their coins are worth. They would be much more illiquid otherwise. Failing to get them into the holders they deserve to be in for the current market is leaving yourself short in the event you suddenly pass away or need to liquidate in short order for emergency reasons....but your local dealers will love you for it....lol.
I know I didn't want my family having to worry about upgrading coins in the event I passed away or trying to figure out what they were worth if left raw. And if they failed to attempt upgrades on coins purchased 10-30 years earlier, lots of money could be left on the table (20-50%). For that reason I went through the first upgrading cycle in 1997-1998 with many others in order to keep up with the market. And then did it again around 2006-2008. As TDN has suggested, it's about every 10 yrs. One can choose not to do this and just roll the dice when it's time to cash out. Continual slabbing/re-evaluation is a culture that has been "forced" on us to keep up where significant dollars are at stake. The CAC beanology is just another angle on the same subject. Ignore it at your own peril.
as I said, it is now our culture to upgrade
Grades are opinions, it is human nature to seek out better opinions. Go get a bad one from a doctor and see how quickly you resubmit
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
If you don't mind me asking, where do you get this data?
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Well said rr & Crypto. "Continual slabbing/re-evaluation is a culture that has been "forced" on us to keep up where significant dollars are at stake." The key word which he highlighted is forced, I'm convinced this is due to what I consider loosening and or changing of the grading standards. "Grades are opinions" an excellent reminder for all.
Currently we have four choices, personally I've used a combination of #2 & #3.
Keep your coins raw.
Re-grade your coins periodically and or before you sell.
Leave your coins in their old slabs and utilize the CAC bean.
Do nothing, leave everything as you bought it.
b
It would be helpful if you added the % of the total pop for each grade.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yet, what would you do if you had old slabs that are green beaned, but you know they would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration? I think you'd likely choose #4. Correct?
@totally "If you don't mind me asking, where do you get this data?"
I have a hardcopy of the Jan 2005 PCGS pop report and got the current numbers from the online pop report.
@MrEureka "It would be helpful if you added the % of the total pop for each grade."
What's that old saying about "don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
@Catbert said:
“Yet, what would you do if you had old slabs that are green beaned, but you know they would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration? I think you'd likely choose #4. Correct?”
Sure, that would be great, if you know your heirs will find an educated buyer willing to pay full current value for undergraded coins, someone who sees perceived value equal to or greater than yours.
Alternatively, you could be better assured your coins reach full value and the broadest market when sold, by periodically keeping them properly represented by their label.
(I know it sucks...)
And here is a question about changing standards - EAC grading, changing, or have they remained consistent? If so, does that mean the EAC vs TPG grade for such coins has changed in the past deccade - meaning the TPG grades going up and more discrepant from the EAC grade? Where does CAC fit in for coppers? I have heard EACers say that CAC is not very good for coppers............. I don't do CAC based coppers any more so just thinking out loud with no base of argument either way.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
But we wouldn't have to if the TPG's didn't give out upgrades and held standards tight since say 1997. I'd have no reason to ever resubmit if standards stayed the same. I'd rather keep the coin in the older holder. The only other time I resubmit is when I think I was short changed on the grade I received. Many times I'd buy a raw coin at major auction paying MS65 money, only to get a 64 back. Then I'm forced to keep trying until my patience wears out.
Case in point my former 1838-0 dime...the first to ever grade MS65. And that was by pure luck thanks to PCGS. The coin was bought raw for solid MS64 money ($7500) at a 1988 Stack's auction. It came back NGC MS64 which meant I might be able to make 5% on the coin. Not a problem. But I honestly felt it had a fair shot to 65 being exceptionally clean from marks. So I tried PCGS. MS63! Now it was worth $3,750 on paper. I had no choice but no resubmit to NGC to try and get back to even. Nope. Came back NGC MS65 - pop 1 - finest graded. Value of $15K-$18K. And it was an easy sale sight-unseen over the phone. I'd have stopped on the coin if NGC 64'd it the 2nd time.
Another time NGC hammered a raw submission of mine with grades that were 1 pt lower across the board. Almost everything went back again. Most went up a point. One of them went up 2 points which was a surprise (1882 half from MS65 to MS67). That was rather fortunate since I had paid MS66+ money for that coin at auction and a 65 grade was a burial. The TPG culture "guides" us to action.
Yes, I do own some old slabs that are green beaned, that I think would upgrade if submitted via reconsideration that have not been submitted. At some point before selling I'll make the decision whether to resubmit or leave them as is. I love the old holders and respect the bean, but in some cases especially when the spread is large a one point upgrade might be the best option to maximize the prices realized.
Yes.
Why potentially limit your value in an old holder with a bean?
One can love the old holder and the bean but don’t ignore the risks.
One can hate the gradeflation and the upgrading game it causes, but don’t ignore the risks.
Be realistic and prudent with investment coins.
The old holder of an undergraded coin may be lovable, but, if grades represent pricing, old holders give sellers little more than an emotional tie to something forgotten, and likely give the seller’s heirs less than that.
And, old holders can possibly give a buyer/dealer room to undercut.
And the bean on an undergraded coin?
The bean lost all its real value and meaning the moment gradeflation made the coin upgradeable.
Remember, the bean was awarded to the coin, confirming a grade that no longer is a true and market-accepted representation of your coin.
After the coin becomes upgradeable, the bean maybe still can provide a boost to the ego of the seller, but that’s all. There’s no ego value to the heirs, and the bean no longer adds value to the coin.
If a coin is undergraded, any smart buyer will ignore it’s valueless obsolete bean.
Be careful not to allow love nor ego to limit the value of the coin/investment.