@illini420 said:
A bit of a misleading title here... No gradeflation... just a crossover. Sure, market value is likely higher with PCGS, but we need an upgrade for there to be "gradeflation."
Some people consider such a crossover to be an upgrade
This is a case where the + is a pretty big deal since it makes it the top PCGS graded coin. Based on the TV, I think the toning is pleasing but the luster doesn't seem to compare to the coin in TDN's set. I rather like the toning of the 64+ in CoinFacts, by the way. Lance's post is a great example of why you would need to see it in hand to make any real assessment.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
While a gradeflation argument can be made, afew other explanations can be cited:
Grading followed by cracking out is a game of percentages. And the percentages were repeatedly played with this coin until it reached the high end of improbability on the most likely grade outcomes. Yes it sounds as silly as it reads but that may be the best explanation fo what transpired.
-Grading is still subjective and still remains an evolutionary process which should improve as more coins are seen that will help shape and truly define the pool of what exists. I am not convinced that with all coins and series that gradeflation is the problem in contrast to asserting an expectation that may not be completely predicated in reality. Seems we all have our 21st century yardstick out with the benefit of the passing of time, advances in technology in terms of how coins in general are minted, stored, transported to the point of entering commerce. So our view of preservation and how to classify that state of preservation does not always fit neatly into the Sheldon scale. While this is truly the Readers' Digest condensed version, it should help broaden the grading discussion. A continued reliance on a sterile and rigid mathematical analysis to coin grading does not prevent gradeflation. Instead, it promotes a culture of chance based on percentages that if played often enough may ultimately produce a coin like the one that prompted this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@Wabbit2313 said:
Bill, it did cross. That is the PCGS image in the original post. It is PCGS MS-65+, just as it always has been.
Which says that a MS65+ seated coin at NGC and PCGS are of the same quality. We know that's NOT the case in general. It's also the case that gem seated dollars (at PCGS in particular) have shown a lot less gradeflation than the rest of the seated (and type) coin markets. Without seeing the coin in person, I can't say if this would have graded MS65 back in 1987-1993. I doubt it though. If so, that would be gradeflation
The scuff/graze on Miss Liberty's cheek is quite common for ALL gem seated halves and dollars. I've never seen a MS65/66/67 seated half or seated dollar without a high point scrape/friction somewhere on the coin (knee, face, breasts, arms, etc.). The coins are just too big and exposed to prevent it. This 1846 seated dollar is a wonderful gem coin. We could certainly call any coin with a graze as AU58 which works for me. Then you'd have ZERO mint state seated dollars and hundreds to thousands more in grades of AU55-AU58+....with prices ranging from $750-$350,000. No one would complain about that, would they? You'd have coins with real rubbing butting heads in the same grade with those having grazes or high point oxidation/toning breaks.
@Zoins said:
Given how grading works, unless every coin is photographed and cataloged so it can be identified on a regrade, is gradeflation just a natural result of when subjective grading meets determined submission?
Or a necessity for continue revenue and profits?
It's also a way of limiting exposure to liability too. Yesteryear's low end or slightly overgraded 65 might be today's highend 65 or even a low end 66. It makes payouts under the guarantee much rarer.
I probably should have been more specific and directed my questions directly to the OP, I assumed that since I cut/pasted his comment that it would be understood. it apparently was by all but you, though you did indicate your ignorance in the reply. I will forgive on those grounds and await a reply by TDN if he cares to answer.
I think Wabbit gave the best answer thus far, that it isn't so much "gradeflation" as it is simply a case of PCGS agreeing with NGC.
Grading is still subjective and still remains an evolutionary process which should improve as more coins are seen that will help shape and truly define the pool of what exists.
The “Grading is subjective” bromide gets trotted out whenever people have differences of opinion. While minor honest differences of opinion are certainly possible, “subjective” can’t be used as an excuse for gross over grading. If over grading, ignoring series defects and coin doctoring are okay, then we might as well not have any Third Party Grading services. The TPGs were created to combat the rampant over grading and resulting consumer fraud that existed before they came on the market.
You need to be very careful when the price from MS-64 to MS-65 jumps from $9,500 to $85,000 (“Coin Facts” quotes). Previously PCGS had been very cautious about giving the MS-65 to the coin under those circumstances. They used to err on the side of caution. Now perhaps that is changing. If it is, the net result will be a drop in the price for the MS-65 graded pieces, both because there will be more of them and because you will be getting less for the grade.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
But I do agree that there appears to be a huge gap in quality between the two AU50's that BillJones shared.
you realize that you're assessing two pictures taken with different lighting, etc. by different people. that is hardly reliable enough to make a "gradeflation" opinion. it would be better to see them in-hand or to see reliable pictures taken by the same person at the same time.
I think that is an older term that we (ok, at least I) use euphemistically, but based on exactly such cabinets that are still widely used in the UK - as an example, see Peter Nicholls cabinets still widely used and for sale there even now. Evidently even slight vibration, such as with a person walking by or HVAC on/off, nearby car traffic that can be transferred to the coins and there is a type of wear/polish that develops to the high points.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
I would say that terms like cabinet friction and bag marks are used today to describe slight wear and contacts, even though the coins in question were never in a cabinet or bag. they seem appropriate.
@keets said: But I do agree that there appears to be a huge gap in quality between the two AU50's that BillJones shared.
you realize that you're assessing two pictures taken with different lighting, etc. by different people. that is hardly reliable enough to make a "gradeflation" opinion. it would be better to see them in-hand or to see reliable pictures taken by the same person at the same time.
The same 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was in the NGC AU-50 holder is now in a PCGS AU-58 holder. I know that because I have pictures of the coin in both holders.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The same 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was in the NGC AU-50 holder is now in a PCGS AU-58 holder. I know that because I have pictures of the coin in both holders.
I would consider this somewhat normal if we are comparing grading over a 15-30 yr period. There's no question an AU50 of 1988 vintage is often an AU 55 or better today. Look at 1804 dollars where an XF of old has become a 55/58 coin. It's more about grading changes than it is about lighting/optics/photography.
The same 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was in the NGC AU-50 holder is now in a PCGS AU-58 holder. I know that because I have pictures of the coin in both holders.
I would consider this somewhat normal if we are comparing grading over a 15-30 yr period. There's no question an AU50 of 1988 vintage is often an AU 55 or better today. Look at 1804 dollars where an XF of old has become a 55/58 coin. It's more about grading changes than it is about lighting/optics/photography.
The kick in the pants is the person who upgraded it cleaned the coin and put hairlines on it before he sent it to PCGS. The coin is not nearly as nice now as it was when it was in the NGC holder. I had the coin consignment when it was in the NGC holder, and would have sold for a tad less than $90,000 to my best customer. I would have loved to have bought it myself, but the price might as well have been $90 million, given my finances at the time.
The upgrade occurred circa 1999 – 2000. People tell me the photo is reason why the coin looks worse.
NO!!!! I saw the piece, and the dealer who had the piece when it was in each of the holders confirmed my observation that it had been cleaned during the time from when it was cracked out of the NGC holder and sent to PCGS. He didn’t do it; one of his customers did.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
> Evidently even slight vibration, such as with a person walking by or HVAC on/off, nearby car traffic that can be transferred to the coins and there is a type of wear/polish that develops to the high points.
Icebergs melting in the North Sea vibrate cabinet coins.
Actually, there is a little truth to vibrations - some we cannot feel. I've been told that at one time some precision balances were located on formidable granite bases.
My thought has been that "cabinet friction" is caused when the trays are pulled in and out and the coins slide over the velvet. Over time that tiny bit of fraction can add up especially of one side is always putted toward the cloth. That can also explain why a coin might be toned on one side and not toned on the other.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@keets said:
Bill, did you see the coin each time or pictures each time??
I saw the coin in person each time. I took the pictures. If I can't convince you so be it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The same 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was in the NGC AU-50 holder is now in a PCGS AU-58 holder. I know that because I have pictures of the coin in both holders.
I would consider this somewhat normal if we are comparing grading over a 15-30 yr period. There's no question an AU50 of 1988 vintage is often an AU 55 or better today. Look at 1804 dollars where an XF of old has become a 55/58 coin. It's more about grading changes than it is about lighting/optics/photography.
If XF / AU-50 to AU-58 is normal, is that the same as saying gradeflation is normal?
I need to see the coin in hand. In copper of that vintage, often a coin's eye appeal is the difference between a 64 and 65 grade. A coin can have clean surfaces, no hits, but if it doesn't have enough eye appeal, it won't / imo shouldn't get into a 5 holder. I saw an example of this @ Long Beach last Thursday.
The image of this coin doesn't seem to have enough eye appeal to merit a 5 holder, but who knows what the coin really looks like. Plus grades I've seen in any holder are basically window dressing. If you know how to grade a series, you know what a nice for the grade coin should look like.
The sticker just means that John Albanese wants to buy the coin because he believes he can resell it quickly. Relatively problem-free Seated Dollars have always been popular coins.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
If XF / AU-50 to AU-58 is normal, is that the same as saying gradeflation is normal?
Yes. It's normal...at least in a TPG dominated market. Been that way since at least 1996-1998 when the flood gates first started cracking. Is an increasing M2 (broad money supply) a "normal" thing in our economy? Yes, except for some very brief periods when things went flat for a time.
The money supply should grow with the size of the economy. There is nothing wrong with putting more money in the eoncomy as it grows. In fact that is quite healthy. The bad things start to happen with the money supply is growing far faster than the economy.
As for the grading issue, what we see is a mature market for grading services. Gradeflation is a way to stimulate more business. I wish grading could get more involved with the foreign markets to the take pressure off of the U.S. coin grading.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said: "I wish grading could get more involved with the foreign markets to the take pressure off of the U.S. coin grading."
You might be surprised at how many foreign coins (ancients excluded) go through NGC, PCGS and ICG. I've heard nothing lately about ANACS, except at the Jacksonville coin show they would be lucky if they got 15 submissions.
Anyway, PCGS just hired away two of NGC's foreign graders. One of them, Jay, is far above average at counterfeit detection.
Comments
Some people consider such a crossover to be an upgrade
This is a case where the + is a pretty big deal since it makes it the top PCGS graded coin. Based on the TV, I think the toning is pleasing but the luster doesn't seem to compare to the coin in TDN's set. I rather like the toning of the 64+ in CoinFacts, by the way. Lance's post is a great example of why you would need to see it in hand to make any real assessment.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
While a gradeflation argument can be made, afew other explanations can be cited:
-Grading is still subjective and still remains an evolutionary process which should improve as more coins are seen that will help shape and truly define the pool of what exists. I am not convinced that with all coins and series that gradeflation is the problem in contrast to asserting an expectation that may not be completely predicated in reality. Seems we all have our 21st century yardstick out with the benefit of the passing of time, advances in technology in terms of how coins in general are minted, stored, transported to the point of entering commerce. So our view of preservation and how to classify that state of preservation does not always fit neatly into the Sheldon scale. While this is truly the Readers' Digest condensed version, it should help broaden the grading discussion. A continued reliance on a sterile and rigid mathematical analysis to coin grading does not prevent gradeflation. Instead, it promotes a culture of chance based on percentages that if played often enough may ultimately produce a coin like the one that prompted this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
That coin needs a good dip and some AT. Get ICGS to grade it MS69 PL
Which says that a MS65+ seated coin at NGC and PCGS are of the same quality. We know that's NOT the case in general. It's also the case that gem seated dollars (at PCGS in particular) have shown a lot less gradeflation than the rest of the seated (and type) coin markets. Without seeing the coin in person, I can't say if this would have graded MS65 back in 1987-1993. I doubt it though. If so, that would be gradeflation
The scuff/graze on Miss Liberty's cheek is quite common for ALL gem seated halves and dollars. I've never seen a MS65/66/67 seated half or seated dollar without a high point scrape/friction somewhere on the coin (knee, face, breasts, arms, etc.). The coins are just too big and exposed to prevent it. This 1846 seated dollar is a wonderful gem coin. We could certainly call any coin with a graze as AU58 which works for me. Then you'd have ZERO mint state seated dollars and hundreds to thousands more in grades of AU55-AU58+....with prices ranging from $750-$350,000. No one would complain about that, would they? You'd have coins with real rubbing butting heads in the same grade with those having grazes or high point oxidation/toning breaks.
It's also a way of limiting exposure to liability too. Yesteryear's low end or slightly overgraded 65 might be today's highend 65 or even a low end 66. It makes payouts under the guarantee much rarer.
None of this matters.
of course it matters.
I probably should have been more specific and directed my questions directly to the OP, I assumed that since I cut/pasted his comment that it would be understood. it apparently was by all but you, though you did indicate your ignorance in the reply. I will forgive on those grounds and await a reply by TDN if he cares to answer.
I think Wabbit gave the best answer thus far, that it isn't so much "gradeflation" as it is simply a case of PCGS agreeing with NGC.
The “Grading is subjective” bromide gets trotted out whenever people have differences of opinion. While minor honest differences of opinion are certainly possible, “subjective” can’t be used as an excuse for gross over grading. If over grading, ignoring series defects and coin doctoring are okay, then we might as well not have any Third Party Grading services. The TPGs were created to combat the rampant over grading and resulting consumer fraud that existed before they came on the market.
You need to be very careful when the price from MS-64 to MS-65 jumps from $9,500 to $85,000 (“Coin Facts” quotes). Previously PCGS had been very cautious about giving the MS-65 to the coin under those circumstances. They used to err on the side of caution. Now perhaps that is changing. If it is, the net result will be a drop in the price for the MS-65 graded pieces, both because there will be more of them and because you will be getting less for the grade.
But I do agree that there appears to be a huge gap in quality between the two AU50's that BillJones shared.
you realize that you're assessing two pictures taken with different lighting, etc. by different people. that is hardly reliable enough to make a "gradeflation" opinion. it would be better to see them in-hand or to see reliable pictures taken by the same person at the same time.
So on the "Cabinet Friction" term ... was that from a real cabinet like this one?
Did the coins slide around a lot in them?
What era were coin cabinets heavily used and when did they go out of style?
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I think that is an older term that we (ok, at least I) use euphemistically, but based on exactly such cabinets that are still widely used in the UK - as an example, see Peter Nicholls cabinets still widely used and for sale there even now. Evidently even slight vibration, such as with a person walking by or HVAC on/off, nearby car traffic that can be transferred to the coins and there is a type of wear/polish that develops to the high points.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I would say that terms like cabinet friction and bag marks are used today to describe slight wear and contacts, even though the coins in question were never in a cabinet or bag. they seem appropriate.
The same 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was in the NGC AU-50 holder is now in a PCGS AU-58 holder. I know that because I have pictures of the coin in both holders.
@keets said: "... it apparently was by all but you, though you did indicate your ignorance in the reply. I will forgive on those grounds..."
Thank you. You guys need to remember that some of us CRH are not as experienced with the commercial side of the business.
I would consider this somewhat normal if we are comparing grading over a 15-30 yr period. There's no question an AU50 of 1988 vintage is often an AU 55 or better today. Look at 1804 dollars where an XF of old has become a 55/58 coin. It's more about grading changes than it is about lighting/optics/photography.
The kick in the pants is the person who upgraded it cleaned the coin and put hairlines on it before he sent it to PCGS. The coin is not nearly as nice now as it was when it was in the NGC holder. I had the coin consignment when it was in the NGC holder, and would have sold for a tad less than $90,000 to my best customer. I would have loved to have bought it myself, but the price might as well have been $90 million, given my finances at the time.
The upgrade occurred circa 1999 – 2000. People tell me the photo is reason why the coin looks worse.
NO!!!! I saw the piece, and the dealer who had the piece when it was in each of the holders confirmed my observation that it had been cleaned during the time from when it was cracked out of the NGC holder and sent to PCGS. He didn’t do it; one of his customers did.
> Evidently even slight vibration, such as with a person walking by or HVAC on/off, nearby car traffic that can be transferred to the coins and there is a type of wear/polish that develops to the high points.
Icebergs melting in the North Sea vibrate cabinet coins.
Actually, there is a little truth to vibrations - some we cannot feel. I've been told that at one time some precision balances were located on formidable granite bases.
My thought has been that "cabinet friction" is caused when the trays are pulled in and out and the coins slide over the velvet. Over time that tiny bit of fraction can add up especially of one side is always putted toward the cloth. That can also explain why a coin might be toned on one side and not toned on the other.
Bill, did you see the coin each time or pictures each time??
I saw the coin in person each time. I took the pictures. If I can't convince you so be it.
If XF / AU-50 to AU-58 is normal, is that the same as saying gradeflation is normal?
I need to see the coin in hand. In copper of that vintage, often a coin's eye appeal is the difference between a 64 and 65 grade. A coin can have clean surfaces, no hits, but if it doesn't have enough eye appeal, it won't / imo shouldn't get into a 5 holder. I saw an example of this @ Long Beach last Thursday.
The image of this coin doesn't seem to have enough eye appeal to merit a 5 holder, but who knows what the coin really looks like. Plus grades I've seen in any holder are basically window dressing. If you know how to grade a series, you know what a nice for the grade coin should look like.
The sticker just means that John Albanese wants to buy the coin because he believes he can resell it quickly. Relatively problem-free Seated Dollars have always been popular coins.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Bill, lighten up. I was only asking a question because your initial explanation wasn't clear to me.
Yes. It's normal...at least in a TPG dominated market. Been that way since at least 1996-1998 when the flood gates first started cracking. Is an increasing M2 (broad money supply) a "normal" thing in our economy? Yes, except for some very brief periods when things went flat for a time.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
The money supply should grow with the size of the economy. There is nothing wrong with putting more money in the eoncomy as it grows. In fact that is quite healthy. The bad things start to happen with the money supply is growing far faster than the economy.
As for the grading issue, what we see is a mature market for grading services. Gradeflation is a way to stimulate more business. I wish grading could get more involved with the foreign markets to the take pressure off of the U.S. coin grading.
@BillJones said: "I wish grading could get more involved with the foreign markets to the take pressure off of the U.S. coin grading."
You might be surprised at how many foreign coins (ancients excluded) go through NGC, PCGS and ICG. I've heard nothing lately about ANACS, except at the Jacksonville coin show they would be lucky if they got 15 submissions.
Anyway, PCGS just hired away two of NGC's foreign graders. One of them, Jay, is far above average at counterfeit detection.