Analyst,
Apparently you know more from sitting in the stands than the players who play the game. I stand by my comments as they are my experiences only. I'm not speaking for anyone else. To answer the original post, there are several great graders on the major Bourse floor. And it does take many submissions constantly to hone in on TPG's line. And I don't know of any grader who can consistently grade to the 10th of a point.
I also agree with roadrunner's experience. You will butt heads with the same few people for either the great coins, especially if they have upgrade potential. There are many more series and areas where graders can make money than ever before, but as someone who is very familiar with the business (and there are 1000'some of coin dealers), grading/upgrading is not how the vast majority make their living. They simply buy and sell coins
"Million dollar (or at least multiple thousand dollar) question: how do you know which grader is working when? Trade secret?"
Former grader, still friends and in contact with the then current graders.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
@Lakesammman said:
"Million dollar (or at least multiple thousand dollar) question: how do you know which grader is working when? Trade secret?"
Former grader, still friends and in contact with the then current graders.
One major dealer told me back in 2004 that they tracked the graders each and every week. I took that to mean they either had someone on the inside or parked a body in the area to keep track of things. A company that large would always have a reason to have someone in the SoCal area, especially since they probably send in hundreds of coins every week. So keeping tabs on PCGS graders coming and going could be doable. Some of their staff are former graders too.
Just my random thought: If you can't grade the series you collect within a point, you should not be collecting the series until you can. Perhaps a point and a half.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
To rephrase one of Analyst's comments, grading is not so much about accuracy as it is about predicting what will happen if you submit a coin for grading. After all, there really is no such thing as "the right grade".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
To rephrase one of Analyst's comments, grading is not so much about accuracy as it is about predicting what will happen if you submit a coin for grading. After all, there really is no such thing as "the right grade".
I think there is a "right" or correct grade for over 90% of coins, though it might only get that grade 60-80% of the time. Whatever conclusion 10 experts in that series come to on what the coin's grade is (take average on 10, or toss out the 2 highs and lows and average 6, or choose the grade assigned the most often, etc.) the grade that appears/averages out the most often. The current system is not designed to figure that out.
The correct grade is not of importance. Only the last grade received. For those coins that when submitted end up with a 50-50 split between grades (say 5 graders call it 63 and the other 5 a 64), then it is a tie....but still should be given a 63+ grade. In the current system, that coin will end up in a 64 holder. Grading should be about accuracy...and not the probabilities of an upgrade. A 5% probability of an upgrade....on 20-30 submissions, just might get it done....and into the incorrect, higher graded holder. A more fair system would be that the previous grade follows the coin into the grading room and counts as one grader. I had a MS64 seated quarter cracked out and graded 64 a total of 5X. And each and every time it came back 64. The correct grade was most certainly MS64/64+. Though I'd be the first to admit that given enough time and submissions, someone would have gotten that into an "incorrectly" graded, MS65 holder. Hey, better me since I owned it for 5 years and all those attempts. Unfortunately, a coin doc ended up with it, dipped and puttied it, and got the MS65, ruining the coin forever.
Regarding the coin graders schedules and some dealers knowing exactly who is grading where and when....
In my personal opinion, I believe the coin grading companies should publicly state exactly who will be grading at each event. Remember, PCGS is all about CONSISTENCY. In theory, it shouldn't matter who is grading at the event. The fact that a grading service does not want to reveal the graders at an event is troublesome to me. It would sort of be like a baseball game where MLB does not want to reveal the identity of the umpires at the big game.
I understand that some submittors might believe a certain finalizer or grader is too "tight" and would then prefer to skip that event. But, that (if true) is for the grading service to then fix. If you think about, there is no logical reason to not post the identity of the grading teams at the big events. In fact, showing the team might result in larger submissions. And, most importantly, insurance of a "level playing field".
As always, just my two cents.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
After a Basic Grading 101 course, most should be able to list the reasons why the same coin can be assigned several grades by professionals. Of these, I believe the most important is the lack of precision due to the needs of the commercial market. The fact that there are no published grading standards that are followed adds to the problem.
@Insider2 said:
After a Basic Grading 101 course, most should be able to list the reasons why the same coin can be assigned several grades by professionals. Of these, I believe the most important is the lack of precision due to the needs of the commercial market. The fact that there are no published grading standards that are followed adds to the problem.
There are published grading standards that have been out there for decades. PCGS already posts a photograde set for everyone to look at. And there's also the PCGS grading and counterfeit detection guide which does provide specific requirements and photos for many grades on various coins. Considering all the trade-offs between the different factors that go into grading/valuing a coin, one of the biggest ones being human subjectivity, it's a tall order.
What other standards could be written down and then adhered to? That only 2.24 medium sized bag marks per side and 3.618 light grazes per side are acceptable on a MS65 Morgan dollar....assuming the strike is at least 88.86% full, and that the toning is not worse than "neutral" (see separate definitions and requirements for neutral grade)....also see the 187 pages of charts and tables for acceptability and averaging on grazes, bag marks, strike, toning, luster, and overall eye appeal. When Heritage's NCI first came out with their grading system back in the early 1980's, it was essentially a mathematical compilation of numerous factors. It never did quite work and take hold. It didn't help that it didn't line up very well with ANACS or the top tier professional dealer grading standards of that time.
I've never said that any 2 professional dealers will grade a coin the same way. What I do expect is that a group of 10 or more of them should be able to come to consensus as to what market grade is on any coin in their area of expertise (ie 6 out of 10 or better)....in 80-90% of the cases. There will always exceptions for coins that fall outside the regular bell curve.
To be clear, the standard grading scale is three digits 0.00-70.0, not 2 0-70. This is how "+" coins are born.
Every dealer should be able to grade, or they should not call themselves a dealer. And if "Guessing" what PCGS put on a label every time correctly is your gauge to how well someone grades, then how do you account for the sometime disagreement between the two major houses on the same coin?
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
@AMRC said:
To be clear, the standard grading scale is three digits 0.00-70.0, not 2 0-70. This is how "+" coins are born.
Every dealer should be able to grade, or they should not call themselves a dealer. And if "Guessing" what PCGS put on a label every time correctly is your gauge to how well someone grades, then how do you account for the sometime disagreement between the two major houses on the same coin? Plus signs, decimal points, etc....pick anything you want to call them. Same difference. They've been a useful tool for several decades.
"+" coins were born back in the mid-1970's, maybe even earlier. I used them when grading at NERCG auctions in 1974-1976 as so did those I was competing against. The only stated grades were 60, 63, 65. And based on the large price differences from 63 to 65 and also above 65, there had to be "plus signs" at work. My catalogs back in the mid-1970's were annotated with grades like 60++, 63++, and 65+. One size didn't fit all even back then. Simple interpolation since grading exists on a smooth curve, not a step function. Grading by "steps" was only introduced to make it simpler for some.
Why do PCGS and NGC experts grade the same coins differently at times? Probably because they have distinctly different standards. That's no secret. The min requirement for NGC to grade a MS65 capped bust half is very different than PCGS. And if you look at MS67/68 grades for US coins in the 1930-1964 era, PCGS and NGC vary fairly widely. Those are just a couple of the biggest differences between them. In fact, send the same coin back to PCGS multiple times and you will often get grade variations in 2-3 submissions. The TPG's themselves are probably only 65-75% repeatable on MS62-MS67 mint state type coins (1811-1932).
@Insider2 said:
After a Basic Grading 101 course, most should be able to list the reasons why the same coin can be assigned several grades by professionals. Of these, I believe the most important is the lack of precision due to the needs of the commercial market. The fact that there are no published grading standards that are followed adds to the problem.
There are published grading standards that have been out there for decades. PCGS already posts a photograde set for everyone to look at. And there's also the PCGS grading and counterfeit detection guide which does provide specific requirements and photos for many grades on various coins. Considering all the trade-offs between the different factors that go into grading/valuing a coin, one of the biggest ones being human subjectivity, it's a tall order.
What other standards could be written down and then adhered to? That only 2.24 medium sized bag marks per side and 3.618 light grazes per side are acceptable on a MS65 Morgan dollar....assuming the strike is at least 88.86% full, and that the toning is not worse than "neutral" (see separate definitions and requirements for neutral grade)....also see the 187 pages of charts and tables for acceptability and averaging on grazes, bag marks, strike, toning, luster, and overall eye appeal. When Heritage's NCI first came out with their grading system back in the early 1980's, it was essentially a mathematical compilation of numerous factors. It never did quite work and take hold. It didn't help that it didn't line up very well with ANACS or the top tier professional dealer grading standards of that time.
I've never said that any 2 professional dealers will grade a coin the same way. What I do expect is that a group of 10 or more of them should be able to come to consensus as to what market grade is on any coin in their area of expertise (ie 6 out of 10 or better)....in 80-90% of the cases. There will always exceptions for coins that fall outside the regular bell curve.
"There are published grading standards that have been out there for decades. PCGS already posts a photograde set for everyone to look at. And there's also the PCGS grading and counterfeit detection guide which does provide specific requirements and photos for many grades on various coins. Considering all the trade-offs between the different factors that go into grading/valuing a coin, one of the biggest ones being human subjectivity, it's a tall order."
Your statement is true. There are even grading guides you did not mention. I use those you wrote about and the ones you left out. AS I WROTE THERE ARE NO STANDARDS. In my experience (I believe to be on par with yours) , even the TPGS you mention does not follow their own book or photos.
"What other standards could be written down and then adhered to? That only 2.24 medium sized bag marks per side and 3.618 light grazes per side are acceptable on a MS65 Morgan dollar....assuming the strike is at least 88.86% full, and that the toning is not worse than "neutral" (see separate definitions and requirements for neutral grade)....also see the 187 pages of charts and tables for acceptability and averaging on grazes, bag marks, strike, toning, luster, and overall eye appeal. When Heritage's NCI first came out with their grading system back in the early 1980's, it was essentially a mathematical compilation of numerous factors. It never did quite work and take hold. It didn't help that it didn't line up very well with ANACS or the top tier professional dealer grading standards of that time."
THANK YOU, FOR MAKING MY POINT. Professional dealers NEVER followed the published standards and forced ANACS to change their ANA "standards" to be more in line with the loose "Commercial" standards.
Precision (repeatable results) is what's missing from the entire commercial coin market (Coins formerly graded AU are now graded MS). The powers that could improve the system are not interested in improvement. So, while my opinion can be backed up, who cares? The "system" is bumping along as is.
There are many excellent posts to this thread, especially by Roadrunner, which I wish to address. Before doing so, I honestly feel that it would serve a legitimate educational purpose to post a rejoinder to CNN's response to my post on 12/12/16.
I said here on 12/12/16: As for auction lot viewing, CNN's implication that all the grading-wholesalers identify the same few dozen coins in each auction is not accurate, according to my experiences and research. Grading-wholesalers tend to hone in on different coins. CNN is making it sound like most grading-wholesalers are seeing coins the same way. It is not unusual for one grading-wholesaler to find a coin to be a candidate for an upgrade, while other wholesalers dismiss that particular coin. Like graders at TPGs, grading-wholesalers tend to spend a few seconds on each coin. Moreover, more than a few grading-wholesalers think about probabilities and 'playing the game.' A pitcher knows that not all batters will swing at the same pitches, and not all grading-wholesalers will 'take a shot' with the same coins.
CNN responded on 12/13: I stand by my comments as they are my experiences only. I'm not speaking for anyone else.
In this regard, please let us review a statement in this thread by CNN, which I addressed above.
CNN said on 12/12/16: We may look at 7500 lots in any given auction and only find 25 coins that have upgrade potential. I can assure you we are competing against the other 50-100 dealers who see the same thing.
CNN is not talking only about his own experiences, as he claimed in his post on 12/13/16. CNN is stating the impression that many ("We") are reviewing 7500 lots in any given auction and the "the other 50-100" grading-wholesalers "see the same thing ... only 25 coins that have upgrade potential"! CNN did speak for others and a drew conclusion about the auction related behavior of the 50-100 who CNN clasifies as dealers who could make a living from grading arbitrage.
A related point is that this notion of the 'same 25' out of "7500," which I say is wrong, is inconsistent with CNN's point that he knows some dealers who spend over 100K every month in grading fees. Let us think about this point, which substantiates my position that many coins are purchased out of each substantial auction for the purpose of seeking upgrades and that the same coins are sent in over and over again. All the grading-wholesalers could NOT possibly be honing in on the same coins and a lot more than 25 certified coins out of every 7500 auction lots must be re-submitted. Out of a 7500 coin Heritage auction, a large number are purchased with the idea of re-submitting them to PCGS or ATS.
There have been numerous references to grade-inflation in this forum, including whole threads recently devoted to the topic. Rick Snow's recent writings about the topic are pertinent, as are some of my past writings.
Analyst,
I still think you are incorrect. I AM NOT speaking for others, certainly not the 50-100 dealers I refer to. Only myself. How can you even say that?? And the dealer that spends 100k a month doesn't even do auctions!!! Where did I ever say he was an auction buyer?? I understand your point that from your research there are more than 25-50 coins from each sale that have upgrade potential. My point, is that there are fewer coins than you may think that may actually fall into that category. I'm more than willing to concede that there may even be less high profile coins (say Morgan dollars in old rattler holders that can go from 64 to 65). There may be 100 or more of these in each bigger sale. And there are certainly many specialty dealers who hone in on their particular series who find upgrades of less expensive coins which these dealers completely dismiss either due to lower value or because of inexperience with that particular series. I still butt heads on the better material over the last 30 years with the same group of dealers at auction. This was what I was referring to. This also seems to be consistent with Roadrunners comment as well.
@wondercoin said:
Regarding the coin graders schedules and some dealers knowing exactly who is grading where and when....
In my personal opinion, I believe the coin grading companies should publicly state exactly who will be grading at each event. Remember, PCGS is all about CONSISTENCY. In theory, it shouldn't matter who is grading at the event. The fact that a grading service does not want to reveal the graders at an event is troublesome to me. It would sort of be like a baseball game where MLB does not want to reveal the identity of the umpires at the big game.
I understand that some submittors might believe a certain finalizer or grader is too "tight" and would then prefer to skip that event. But, that (if true) is for the grading service to then fix. If you think about, there is no logical reason to not post the identity of the grading teams at the big events. In fact, showing the team might result in larger submissions. And, most importantly, insurance of a "level playing field".
As always, just my two cents.
wondercoin - when I first read your comment, my reaction was making the graders name public might facilitate corruption via influence peddling. I would endorse making the finalizers known since they are ultimately responsible for a coin's grade and, presumably, would be expected to handle any pressure applied. I think this transparency would be a good thing.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
..... I still butt heads on the better material over the last 30 years with the same group of dealers at auction. This was what I was referring to. This also seems to be consistent with Roadrunners comment as well.
Geez....welcome to the boards CNN...
Welcome CNN. We probably butted heads on seated material over the years and didn't even realize it. Martin Paul was typically the biggest and most consistent buyer at major auctions from 1987-1989, sometimes purchasing as much as 5-15% of any auction. A few $hundred thousand to a $Million+....potentially 50-150 coins. During that era it was not unusual to see NGC labels where the last 3 digits were 050-150 on expensive coins....often indicating Martin (or someone like him) may have been the original buyer/slabber and that was his submission. As the old fatties die off, so will the record of those once huge submissions. He was undoubtedly the one guy I butted heads with the most. He was quite adept at getting the grades he wanted...and often a point higher than my best guess.
Roadrunner: If the TPG business model was to grade with an accuracy of within 2/10ths of a point at the expense of not making any money, they could probably do it for a majority of US coinage in the MS64 to MS67 grades. Of course, when 99% of the collectors walking around can't grade within three whole increments, what would be the point?
Mr. Eureka, as quoted by Roadrunner : To rephrase one of Analyst's comments, grading is not so much about accuracy as it is about predicting what will happen if you submit a coin for grading. After all, there really is no such thing as "the right grade".
Roadrunner: I think there is a "right" or correct grade for over 90% of coins, though it might only get that grade 60-80% of the time. Whatever conclusion 10 experts in that series come to on what the coin's grade is (take average on 10, or toss out the 2 highs and lows and average 6, or choose the grade assigned the most often, etc.) the grade that appears/averages out the most often. The current system is not designed to figure that out.
As much as I respect Andy's knowledge, experience, and skills, I am compelled to agree with Roadrunner in this regard. Although this is an extraordinarily difficult concept to explain, I believe that, for 80% of '64' to 68' grade pre-1934 U.S. coins, there really is a true underlying grade to around 0.2 (1/5) of a point, more or less. As I said above, there are some coins, where strong positive factors and at least one harsh negative factor have to be balanced such that such precision is impossible. Nonetheless, such balancing is not needed for a majority of the coins in this category.
After auctions, when I talk to Charlie Browne, Richard Burdick or JA about coins, it is not unusual for us to be in agreement about a grade to a fraction of an increment, though they would not grade to two-tenths of a point. Certainly, there is much agreement regarding which coins are on the borderline between two grades or about the reasons why a coin should be graded MS-XX.
At some of the same 1990s era auctions that Roadrunner refers to generally, a raw coin that was catalogued as "Choice BU" could later be PCGS graded anywhere from AU-58 to MS-67 or come back in a bodybag. I interviewed expert-graders who participated, occasionally including CNN, and I found that, for many coins, leading graders would be in agreement to a half or even a third of a point, or about the probabilities. "It has a 50% chance of grading 65 and a 40% chance of grading 66." Alternately, I might hear, "it is a lock 64, a likely 65 and has a remote shot at a 66, after a dozen submissions"!
Roadrunner and I are clearly in agreement that leading grading experts seem so concerned about how PCGS will grade specific coins, they do not focus their minds on their own grades. As parameters or subconsciously, most of us grading-veterans employ criteria that were in effect from 1990 to 1997 or so, before waves of grade-inflation and coin doctoring.
I really agree with Roadrunner that, if ten of us (who learned to grade during the 80s and/or 90s) carefully studied 100 expensive classic U.S. coins, as I tend to do anyway, and spent two to five minutes on each one, there would be a remarkably high level of consistency (after 'out of sync' highs and lows are tossed or better understood), to a fraction of a point for those coins that grade above 63. In the cases of particularly high or low grade assignments logically being tossed before figuring an average, those responsible for the respective highs or lows may be willing to reconsider after listening to the views of others. As no one can bat 1.000, we all miss imperfections or mis-interpret positive factors on occasion. This is one reason why I like to discuss coins with other experts and why I like to view the same coin on two different days.
I've listened to Early Copper specialists at the core of that hobby area in post-auction confabs crapping all over each other's purchases for corrosion, color shift, strike (for a particular Sheldon variety) etc. and, after they're all done, agree the coin is an EAC 45. Absolutely useless to within a point on 20th Century silver due to a very different knowledge set, but I'd guess quite a bit more than a few would be intuitively good to within 0.5 on 20th Century gold.
Yet, in 1986 (7?), Martin Paul, myself and Tony Terranova, an EAC guru who also knows a great deal more about Indian Peace Medals than Morgans, split a raw 1892-S $1 in a Superior auction. Tony has an expert eye, but he's no grading expert in that area. His response to it grading (1st try) as the first MS67 of that date was "MS67? That the same as really f@@king nice? OK, that makes sense".
I'd say there are a couple of hundred expert graders on a major bourse floor. Guys who can't consistently grade Morgans closer than to within a point yet are marvelous on color for each and every individual date Indian and Lincoln Cent in these series. Aggregated, that's a good deal less than one per table.
Specialists in an niche can't survive without being expert graders. Within their niche. Some have a broader perspective with strong expertise in quite a few areas. I'm sure there will be 25-50 people on the FUN show bourse with such strong overall skills that I'd hand my checkbook to them without reservation. LOL, not unsurprisingly, none of them need it. They not only have knowledge and skill part of their as expertise, they have talent.
While cnncoins' position clearly limited his observations and perceptions to his own specific experience, they are so commonly shared among experts that they represent as a (mostly) consensual reality. So I don't blame Analyst for conflating an individual's and a generally held experience. I am sure nits might be picked. :smack. However, I tend to favor knowledge that has been bought with making and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades. Skin in the game sharpens the mind. Tremendously.
In Analyst's writings, I've read a great deal of virtuous information about specific coins and series and some arrant nonsense. While I am sure Analyst knew someone at Pittman who would have paid "more" for the proof 1833 $5 if there was a certainty it would grade 67, that potential buyer was a person who "knew the price of everything and the value of nothing". While he has averred that he knows more about the Pittman sales than anyone, I would [u]again[/u] suggest to Analyst that there were 20 people at the sales who knew more than I did, yet I put my head in the lion's mouth paid (gulp) $25K for a 1920-S Saint described as CH. AU which, a week later, was in an MS63 holder.
I learned a lot more about all the hundreds and hundreds of coins I couldn't have bought with a $10MM and a [b]buy[/b] order. Because I didn't know enough. So I watched who competed and who bought what. So I learned. And I knew a whole lot more about a lot of things than a lot of people in the audience. Just not useful that sale. Never could quite figure out that very crusty, very lightly hairlined VF+ 1854-O $20. I was disappointed that the 1891$20 was a proof. With that date, I'm good.
It's really important that you know that you don't know. I thought cnncoins was nuts on President John Tyler's two1843 proof sets from Pittman. Clearly grading was loose that day. (insert sarcasm emoticon here)
I may have been stuck in a dark room at NGC with John Albanese in 1986, but I don't think there's ever been a day in my life when I've believed I could grade to within 0.2 points, But I can rely on the fact that, even on a consensus basis, the guys in the grading room can't do it consistently either. Nor, I believe, do they believe it either.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Col. Jessup: So I don't blame Analyst for conflating an individual's and a generally held experience. I am sure nits might be picked. :smack.
I really believe that I fairly and accurately interpreted the posts to this thread.
CNN himself was not the theme of my posts to this thread. Moreover, I found his posts to this thread to be both very important and very informative. I am glad that CNN joined the forum. He has tremendous knowledge and sharp skills.
My posts to this read relate to the original topic, the sharpest graders and their role in the coin community. The issues of grade-inflation, coin doctoring, grading stability over time, and ongoing re-submission of some of the same coins, are of tremendous importance to collectors and the coin community. Many of the sharpest graders are involved.
The following remark is helpful and educational:
CNN: ... I know of some dealers who spend over 100K every month in grading fees. ....
But, this remark was unfortunately qualified later:
CNN, in a later post: And the dealer that spends 100k a month doesn't even do auctions!!! Where did I ever say he was an auction buyer??
Unless I entirely mis-read CNN's posts, and I apologize if I did, CNN was not, in this thread, referring to dealers who focus on modern coins or world coins. I am thus puzzled as to how someone could spend $100k a month on grading fees for classic U.S. coins and not submit coins that recently came out of auctions. Please explain. Maybe auction buyers send coins to this guy and then he submits them to the grading services?
Also, CNN indicated at first that he knows multiple dealers who spend more than $100k per month on grading fees. Later, just one, "he doesn't even do auctions"!
In any event, my impression is that there are auction buyers who spend vast amounts on grading fees. Years ago, one grading-wholesaler told me that he was spending $20k to $25k per month on grading fees, and he was not one of the major buyers.
Rather than talk about the personalities of numismatists, as Col. Jessup often does, let us talk about the topic of a large number of the same classic U.S. coins being submitted over and over again to PCGS or to our friends ATS. Are many of the sharpest graders really contributing to the coin community or helping collectors? Are their activities harmful?
Coin shows and coin auctions at coin shows would be more useful to collectors if there was less attempted-upgrade activity. Much of the bidding in auctions and much activity on the bourse floor relates to successful or unsuccessful upgrades, including coins selected for dipping or doctoring. These are topics that should be discussed for the benefit of coin collectors.
Comments
Analyst,
Apparently you know more from sitting in the stands than the players who play the game. I stand by my comments as they are my experiences only. I'm not speaking for anyone else. To answer the original post, there are several great graders on the major Bourse floor. And it does take many submissions constantly to hone in on TPG's line. And I don't know of any grader who can consistently grade to the 10th of a point.
I also agree with roadrunner's experience. You will butt heads with the same few people for either the great coins, especially if they have upgrade potential. There are many more series and areas where graders can make money than ever before, but as someone who is very familiar with the business (and there are 1000'some of coin dealers), grading/upgrading is not how the vast majority make their living. They simply buy and sell coins
"Million dollar (or at least multiple thousand dollar) question: how do you know which grader is working when? Trade secret?"
Former grader, still friends and in contact with the then current graders.
One major dealer told me back in 2004 that they tracked the graders each and every week. I took that to mean they either had someone on the inside or parked a body in the area to keep track of things. A company that large would always have a reason to have someone in the SoCal area, especially since they probably send in hundreds of coins every week. So keeping tabs on PCGS graders coming and going could be doable. Some of their staff are former graders too.
Just my random thought: If you can't grade the series you collect within a point, you should not be collecting the series until you can. Perhaps a point and a half.
To rephrase one of Analyst's comments, grading is not so much about accuracy as it is about predicting what will happen if you submit a coin for grading. After all, there really is no such thing as "the right grade".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think there is a "right" or correct grade for over 90% of coins, though it might only get that grade 60-80% of the time. Whatever conclusion 10 experts in that series come to on what the coin's grade is (take average on 10, or toss out the 2 highs and lows and average 6, or choose the grade assigned the most often, etc.) the grade that appears/averages out the most often. The current system is not designed to figure that out.
The correct grade is not of importance. Only the last grade received. For those coins that when submitted end up with a 50-50 split between grades (say 5 graders call it 63 and the other 5 a 64), then it is a tie....but still should be given a 63+ grade. In the current system, that coin will end up in a 64 holder. Grading should be about accuracy...and not the probabilities of an upgrade. A 5% probability of an upgrade....on 20-30 submissions, just might get it done....and into the incorrect, higher graded holder. A more fair system would be that the previous grade follows the coin into the grading room and counts as one grader. I had a MS64 seated quarter cracked out and graded 64 a total of 5X. And each and every time it came back 64. The correct grade was most certainly MS64/64+. Though I'd be the first to admit that given enough time and submissions, someone would have gotten that into an "incorrectly" graded, MS65 holder. Hey, better me since I owned it for 5 years and all those attempts. Unfortunately, a coin doc ended up with it, dipped and puttied it, and got the MS65, ruining the coin forever.
Regarding the coin graders schedules and some dealers knowing exactly who is grading where and when....
In my personal opinion, I believe the coin grading companies should publicly state exactly who will be grading at each event. Remember, PCGS is all about CONSISTENCY. In theory, it shouldn't matter who is grading at the event. The fact that a grading service does not want to reveal the graders at an event is troublesome to me. It would sort of be like a baseball game where MLB does not want to reveal the identity of the umpires at the big game.
I understand that some submittors might believe a certain finalizer or grader is too "tight" and would then prefer to skip that event. But, that (if true) is for the grading service to then fix. If you think about, there is no logical reason to not post the identity of the grading teams at the big events. In fact, showing the team might result in larger submissions. And, most importantly, insurance of a "level playing field".
As always, just my two cents.
After a Basic Grading 101 course, most should be able to list the reasons why the same coin can be assigned several grades by professionals. Of these, I believe the most important is the lack of precision due to the needs of the commercial market. The fact that there are no published grading standards that are followed adds to the problem.
There are published grading standards that have been out there for decades. PCGS already posts a photograde set for everyone to look at. And there's also the PCGS grading and counterfeit detection guide which does provide specific requirements and photos for many grades on various coins. Considering all the trade-offs between the different factors that go into grading/valuing a coin, one of the biggest ones being human subjectivity, it's a tall order.
What other standards could be written down and then adhered to? That only 2.24 medium sized bag marks per side and 3.618 light grazes per side are acceptable on a MS65 Morgan dollar....assuming the strike is at least 88.86% full, and that the toning is not worse than "neutral" (see separate definitions and requirements for neutral grade)....also see the 187 pages of charts and tables for acceptability and averaging on grazes, bag marks, strike, toning, luster, and overall eye appeal. When Heritage's NCI first came out with their grading system back in the early 1980's, it was essentially a mathematical compilation of numerous factors. It never did quite work and take hold. It didn't help that it didn't line up very well with ANACS or the top tier professional dealer grading standards of that time.
I've never said that any 2 professional dealers will grade a coin the same way. What I do expect is that a group of 10 or more of them should be able to come to consensus as to what market grade is on any coin in their area of expertise (ie 6 out of 10 or better)....in 80-90% of the cases. There will always exceptions for coins that fall outside the regular bell curve.
To be clear, the standard grading scale is three digits 0.00-70.0, not 2 0-70. This is how "+" coins are born.
Every dealer should be able to grade, or they should not call themselves a dealer. And if "Guessing" what PCGS put on a label every time correctly is your gauge to how well someone grades, then how do you account for the sometime disagreement between the two major houses on the same coin?
"+" coins were born back in the mid-1970's, maybe even earlier. I used them when grading at NERCG auctions in 1974-1976 as so did those I was competing against. The only stated grades were 60, 63, 65. And based on the large price differences from 63 to 65 and also above 65, there had to be "plus signs" at work. My catalogs back in the mid-1970's were annotated with grades like 60++, 63++, and 65+. One size didn't fit all even back then. Simple interpolation since grading exists on a smooth curve, not a step function. Grading by "steps" was only introduced to make it simpler for some.
Why do PCGS and NGC experts grade the same coins differently at times? Probably because they have distinctly different standards. That's no secret. The min requirement for NGC to grade a MS65 capped bust half is very different than PCGS. And if you look at MS67/68 grades for US coins in the 1930-1964 era, PCGS and NGC vary fairly widely. Those are just a couple of the biggest differences between them. In fact, send the same coin back to PCGS multiple times and you will often get grade variations in 2-3 submissions. The TPG's themselves are probably only 65-75% repeatable on MS62-MS67 mint state type coins (1811-1932).
"There are published grading standards that have been out there for decades. PCGS already posts a photograde set for everyone to look at. And there's also the PCGS grading and counterfeit detection guide which does provide specific requirements and photos for many grades on various coins. Considering all the trade-offs between the different factors that go into grading/valuing a coin, one of the biggest ones being human subjectivity, it's a tall order."
Your statement is true. There are even grading guides you did not mention. I use those you wrote about and the ones you left out. AS I WROTE THERE ARE NO STANDARDS. In my experience (I believe to be on par with yours) , even the TPGS you mention does not follow their own book or photos.
"What other standards could be written down and then adhered to? That only 2.24 medium sized bag marks per side and 3.618 light grazes per side are acceptable on a MS65 Morgan dollar....assuming the strike is at least 88.86% full, and that the toning is not worse than "neutral" (see separate definitions and requirements for neutral grade)....also see the 187 pages of charts and tables for acceptability and averaging on grazes, bag marks, strike, toning, luster, and overall eye appeal. When Heritage's NCI first came out with their grading system back in the early 1980's, it was essentially a mathematical compilation of numerous factors. It never did quite work and take hold. It didn't help that it didn't line up very well with ANACS or the top tier professional dealer grading standards of that time."
THANK YOU, FOR MAKING MY POINT. Professional dealers NEVER followed the published standards and forced ANACS to change their ANA "standards" to be more in line with the loose "Commercial" standards.
Precision (repeatable results) is what's missing from the entire commercial coin market (Coins formerly graded AU are now graded MS). The powers that could improve the system are not interested in improvement. So, while my opinion can be backed up, who cares? The "system" is bumping along as is.
For the sake of argument, I am. The problem is ; I rarely go to shows.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
There are many excellent posts to this thread, especially by Roadrunner, which I wish to address. Before doing so, I honestly feel that it would serve a legitimate educational purpose to post a rejoinder to CNN's response to my post on 12/12/16.
I said here on 12/12/16:
CNN responded on 12/13:
In this regard, please let us review a statement in this thread by CNN, which I addressed above.
CNN said on 12/12/16:
CNN is not talking only about his own experiences, as he claimed in his post on 12/13/16. CNN is stating the impression that many ("We") are reviewing and the "the other 50-100" grading-wholesalers "see the same thing ... only 25 coins that have upgrade potential"! CNN did speak for others and a drew conclusion about the auction related behavior of the who CNN clasifies as dealers who
A related point is that this notion of the 'same 25' out of "7500," which I say is wrong, is inconsistent with CNN's point that he knows . Let us think about this point, which substantiates my position that many coins are purchased out of each substantial auction for the purpose of seeking upgrades and that the same coins are sent in over and over again. All the grading-wholesalers could NOT possibly be honing in on the same coins and a lot more than 25 certified coins out of every 7500 auction lots must be re-submitted. Out of a 7500 coin Heritage auction, a large number are purchased with the idea of re-submitting them to PCGS or ATS.
There have been numerous references to grade-inflation in this forum, including whole threads recently devoted to the topic. Rick Snow's recent writings about the topic are pertinent, as are some of my past writings.
Rick's article was introduced to this forum by TDN in another thread.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
The PCGS SecurePlus Program, Part 2: Reform
Ain't that the truth!
Analyst,
I still think you are incorrect. I AM NOT speaking for others, certainly not the 50-100 dealers I refer to. Only myself. How can you even say that?? And the dealer that spends 100k a month doesn't even do auctions!!! Where did I ever say he was an auction buyer?? I understand your point that from your research there are more than 25-50 coins from each sale that have upgrade potential. My point, is that there are fewer coins than you may think that may actually fall into that category. I'm more than willing to concede that there may even be less high profile coins (say Morgan dollars in old rattler holders that can go from 64 to 65). There may be 100 or more of these in each bigger sale. And there are certainly many specialty dealers who hone in on their particular series who find upgrades of less expensive coins which these dealers completely dismiss either due to lower value or because of inexperience with that particular series. I still butt heads on the better material over the last 30 years with the same group of dealers at auction. This was what I was referring to. This also seems to be consistent with Roadrunners comment as well.
Geez....welcome to the boards CNN...
I might want avoid them then - no sweet pickups, upgrades for me, or money left on table.
wondercoin - when I first read your comment, my reaction was making the graders name public might facilitate corruption via influence peddling. I would endorse making the finalizers known since they are ultimately responsible for a coin's grade and, presumably, would be expected to handle any pressure applied. I think this transparency would be a good thing.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
..... I still butt heads on the better material over the last 30 years with the same group of dealers at auction. This was what I was referring to. This also seems to be consistent with Roadrunners comment as well.
Welcome CNN. We probably butted heads on seated material over the years and didn't even realize it. Martin Paul was typically the biggest and most consistent buyer at major auctions from 1987-1989, sometimes purchasing as much as 5-15% of any auction. A few $hundred thousand to a $Million+....potentially 50-150 coins. During that era it was not unusual to see NGC labels where the last 3 digits were 050-150 on expensive coins....often indicating Martin (or someone like him) may have been the original buyer/slabber and that was his submission. As the old fatties die off, so will the record of those once huge submissions. He was undoubtedly the one guy I butted heads with the most. He was quite adept at getting the grades he wanted...and often a point higher than my best guess.
Roadrunner: within three whole increments, what would be the point?
Mr. Eureka, as quoted by Roadrunner
Roadrunner:
As much as I respect Andy's knowledge, experience, and skills, I am compelled to agree with Roadrunner in this regard. Although this is an extraordinarily difficult concept to explain, I believe that, for 80% of '64' to 68' grade pre-1934 U.S. coins, there really is a true underlying grade to around 0.2 (1/5) of a point, more or less. As I said above, there are some coins, where strong positive factors and at least one harsh negative factor have to be balanced such that such precision is impossible. Nonetheless, such balancing is not needed for a majority of the coins in this category.
After auctions, when I talk to Charlie Browne, Richard Burdick or JA about coins, it is not unusual for us to be in agreement about a grade to a fraction of an increment, though they would not grade to two-tenths of a point. Certainly, there is much agreement regarding which coins are on the borderline between two grades or about the reasons why a coin should be graded MS-XX.
At some of the same 1990s era auctions that Roadrunner refers to generally, a raw coin that was catalogued as "Choice BU" could later be PCGS graded anywhere from AU-58 to MS-67 or come back in a bodybag. I interviewed expert-graders who participated, occasionally including CNN, and I found that, for many coins, leading graders would be in agreement to a half or even a third of a point, or about the probabilities. "It has a 50% chance of grading 65 and a 40% chance of grading 66." Alternately, I might hear, "it is a lock 64, a likely 65 and has a remote shot at a 66, after a dozen submissions"!
Roadrunner and I are clearly in agreement that leading grading experts seem so concerned about how PCGS will grade specific coins, they do not focus their minds on their own grades. As parameters or subconsciously, most of us grading-veterans employ criteria that were in effect from 1990 to 1997 or so, before waves of grade-inflation and coin doctoring.
I really agree with Roadrunner that, if ten of us (who learned to grade during the 80s and/or 90s) carefully studied 100 expensive classic U.S. coins, as I tend to do anyway, and spent two to five minutes on each one, there would be a remarkably high level of consistency (after 'out of sync' highs and lows are tossed or better understood), to a fraction of a point for those coins that grade above 63. In the cases of particularly high or low grade assignments logically being tossed before figuring an average, those responsible for the respective highs or lows may be willing to reconsider after listening to the views of others. As no one can bat 1.000, we all miss imperfections or mis-interpret positive factors on occasion. This is one reason why I like to discuss coins with other experts and why I like to view the same coin on two different days.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
The most accurate in which area?
I've listened to Early Copper specialists at the core of that hobby area in post-auction confabs crapping all over each other's purchases for corrosion, color shift, strike (for a particular Sheldon variety) etc. and, after they're all done, agree the coin is an EAC 45. Absolutely useless to within a point on 20th Century silver due to a very different knowledge set, but I'd guess quite a bit more than a few would be intuitively good to within 0.5 on 20th Century gold.
Yet, in 1986 (7?), Martin Paul, myself and Tony Terranova, an EAC guru who also knows a great deal more about Indian Peace Medals than Morgans, split a raw 1892-S $1 in a Superior auction. Tony has an expert eye, but he's no grading expert in that area. His response to it grading (1st try) as the first MS67 of that date was "MS67? That the same as really f@@king nice? OK, that makes sense".
I'd say there are a couple of hundred expert graders on a major bourse floor. Guys who can't consistently grade Morgans closer than to within a point yet are marvelous on color for each and every individual date Indian and Lincoln Cent in these series. Aggregated, that's a good deal less than one per table.
Specialists in an niche can't survive without being expert graders. Within their niche. Some have a broader perspective with strong expertise in quite a few areas. I'm sure there will be 25-50 people on the FUN show bourse with such strong overall skills that I'd hand my checkbook to them without reservation. LOL, not unsurprisingly, none of them need it.
They not only have knowledge and skill part of their as expertise, they have talent.
While cnncoins' position clearly limited his observations and perceptions to his own specific experience, they are so commonly shared among experts that they represent as a (mostly) consensual reality. So I don't blame Analyst for conflating an individual's and a generally held experience. I am sure nits might be picked. :smack. However, I tend to favor knowledge that has been bought with making and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades. Skin in the game sharpens the mind. Tremendously.
In Analyst's writings, I've read a great deal of virtuous information about specific coins and series and some arrant nonsense. While I am sure Analyst knew someone at Pittman who would have paid "more" for the proof 1833 $5 if there was a certainty it would grade 67, that potential buyer was a person who "knew the price of everything and the value of nothing". While he has averred that he knows more about the Pittman sales than anyone, I would [u]again[/u] suggest to Analyst that there were 20 people at the sales who knew more than I did, yet I put my head in the lion's mouth paid (gulp) $25K for a 1920-S Saint described as CH. AU which, a week later, was in an MS63 holder.
I learned a lot more about all the hundreds and hundreds of coins I couldn't have bought with a $10MM and a [b]buy[/b] order. Because I didn't know enough. So I watched who competed and who bought what. So I learned. And I knew a whole lot more about a lot of things than a lot of people in the audience. Just not useful that sale. Never could quite figure out that very crusty, very lightly hairlined VF+ 1854-O $20. I was disappointed that the 1891$20 was a proof. With that date, I'm good.
It's really important that you know that you don't know. I thought cnncoins was nuts on President John Tyler's two1843 proof sets from Pittman. Clearly grading was loose that day. (insert sarcasm emoticon here)
I may have been stuck in a dark room at NGC with John Albanese in 1986, but I don't think there's ever been a day in my life when I've believed I could grade to within 0.2 points, But I can rely on the fact that, even on a consensus basis, the guys in the grading room can't do it consistently either. Nor, I believe, do they believe it either.
Col. Jessup:
I really believe that I fairly and accurately interpreted the posts to this thread.
CNN himself was not the theme of my posts to this thread. Moreover, I found his posts to this thread to be both very important and very informative. I am glad that CNN joined the forum. He has tremendous knowledge and sharp skills.
My posts to this read relate to the original topic, the sharpest graders and their role in the coin community. The issues of grade-inflation, coin doctoring, grading stability over time, and ongoing re-submission of some of the same coins, are of tremendous importance to collectors and the coin community. Many of the sharpest graders are involved.
The following remark is helpful and educational:
CNN:
But, this remark was unfortunately qualified later:
CNN, in a later post:
Unless I entirely mis-read CNN's posts, and I apologize if I did, CNN was not, in this thread, referring to dealers who focus on modern coins or world coins. I am thus puzzled as to how someone could spend $100k a month on grading fees for classic U.S. coins and not submit coins that recently came out of auctions. Please explain. Maybe auction buyers send coins to this guy and then he submits them to the grading services?
Also, CNN indicated at first that he knows multiple dealers who spend more than $100k per month on grading fees. Later, just one, "he doesn't even do auctions"!
In any event, my impression is that there are auction buyers who spend vast amounts on grading fees. Years ago, one grading-wholesaler told me that he was spending $20k to $25k per month on grading fees, and he was not one of the major buyers.
Rather than talk about the personalities of numismatists, as Col. Jessup often does, let us talk about the topic of a large number of the same classic U.S. coins being submitted over and over again to PCGS or to our friends ATS. Are many of the sharpest graders really contributing to the coin community or helping collectors? Are their activities harmful?
Coin shows and coin auctions at coin shows would be more useful to collectors if there was less attempted-upgrade activity. Much of the bidding in auctions and much activity on the bourse floor relates to successful or unsuccessful upgrades, including coins selected for dipping or doctoring. These are topics that should be discussed for the benefit of coin collectors.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
Insightful10@gmail.com