That's one of the reasons (in addition to affordability) that I enjoy collecting eye-appealing, well-struck, lustrous high-end AU-58's up to MS-64 graded coins -- which are priced on the flatter sloped asymptotic portion of the Price vs Grade Curve, before the prices escalate exponentially at higher grades.
I can select what IMO are GEM AU up to MS-64 high eye-appealing specimens for a fraction of the price of MS-65/66 and above, and get more enjoyment from the hobby with less concern about how Grade-flation may negatively impact the value of my collection.
Bottom line is I can have lots of fun for not a whole lot of money.
Here's one of my favorite examples of what IMO is a GEM AU-58 Eye-Appealing scarcer date CC Morgan Dollar.
1892-CC PCGS AU-58 Morgan Dollar
Photos courtesy of Mike Printz - Harlan Berk Numismatics
@tradedollarnut said:
I hate to sound like Bill Jones - because in my opinion CAC is what's preventing a complete free for all - but I am NOT going to regrade all my sets. I will sell them off and start collecting pretty common coins before I contribute tens of thousands of dollars to the grade inflation gravy train
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"
@tradedollarnut said:
No, it wasn't 30+ years ago. It was a little over ten years ago when Pcgs gems were solid for the grade - almost without exception.
I love Pcgs in general - I'm a huge supporter - but this coin is bs. Laura has seen it in hand and graded the obverse 63/64. That NEVER used to happen. And it's not the only one - I shake my head at some of the gem seated dollars that I've seen lately...
I agree that standards seem to have loosened since 10 years ago. As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Bruce, the sad fact of the matter is that if you have a nice for the grade MS 65 coin or better which you bought ten years ago or earlier, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not having it regraded before its sale. If you want specifics, I can provide them in a PM.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
it seems that 1877-S in MS65 with a green CAC sticker is a common enough coin, so the opinion of JA is driving the price guide and the choices of collectors.
JMHO, of course.
There are only 30 PCGS graded 65's and 13 that are stickered. 12 graded higher
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
What this has done is completely destroy the sight seen coin trading network. This is 1 benefit of what CAC has done for coins since its inception. The vast majority of dealers acknowledge that John Albanese knows how to grade coins and any coin that he feels is solid for the grade and that he stickers can be assumed to be PQ and worth a large premium (I.e paying $9,000 vs $5500 for an ms65 trade dollar).
With CAC's money behind their stickered product, this helps ensure that only PQ coins are stickered as CAC is agreeing to buy any CAC coin that fits with their market (this is to exclude lots of coins that CAC just does not have an interest in buying or creating a market in like an 1881-s $1 in pcgs xf45 or 1894 50c in ngc f15 cac)
Even if a mistake then is made, if pointed out and John agrees he made a mistake he will offer to buy the coin and remove the sticker (as Ive seen done a couple of times)
Sadly I think the grading services already have placed the nail inside the coffins. They need to attract coins for submissions as that is their source of revenue. The only way that I see this problem being cleared up is when lower graded stickered coins are worth more than the above graded non stickered and people cross and downgrade to create value. This actually has happened (as you know) a couple of times on high ticket pieces- and especially ms65-ms66 saints (ms66 saints were at one point worth less than a stickered ms65
@specialist said: "...never forget, the grading services do not maintain consistent grading teams. that could be part of the problem."
Certainly could be but AFAIK, most of the graders have been at each major TPGS for years. And the finalizers don't change much. Yeah, once in awhile their are defections. One VIP went to NCG and one excellent foreign authenticator/ variety expert joined PCGS.
IMO, most of the grading upgrades comes from outside pressure and an effort to pay the light bills. In the late 1990's one major service had enough employees to fill a few picnic tables. Today, they would need a ballroom to have an X-mas party! Besides, it has been said that grading is evolving as the "experts" learn more.
IMHO. working at CAC would be easier than working at PCGS. Agree with a grade or not.
Bruce, when you ask who will step up and stop this, I would have answered you! If you and your circle of friends can't stop it, the rest of us are roadkill. I think JA is trying with his bean/approval stats on gold, but I would think only big dog collectors have a chance with the whole market. If even they don't, it's time to blow it up and start over.
Outside of the ugly toning on that coin, it is on par with many of the other 65's I looked at in sold auctions.
I am also of the mindset that grades have tightened significantly since spring of this year, and have proven my point in other posts. You can find the same overgraded coins in any generation holder if you look around. When walking the floor at shows, it feels that every OGH Morgan I pick up is overgraded by today's standards. The good ones have been pulled, cracked, regraded, or CAC'ed and put away for a rainy day.
Same trend in other coins, like the Lafayette Dollar. PCGS Guide for 65 was $11k several years ago, then trended downward to $5k-6k. Some of it was the market, but most of it was the stuff that started getting into 65 holders, much like the OP coin. Today, if a Lafayette in 65 doesn't have a green sticker, you really have no idea what you're going to get. Unfortunately, I don't get the sense that we're near the bottom of the slippery slope yet.
How many collectors have resubmitted their coins when they are all done or are ready to sell? The reason does not matter. Everyone wants an upgrade as reward. Everyone has forced the line to be pushed. The culture won't change now.
I disagree that "Everyone has forced the line to be pushed." The grading services hire the graders, they are responsible for maintaining consistent grading standards. To suggest that "Everyone wants an upgrade as reward forcing the line to be pushed is ridiculous. The grading services did a pretty good job for many years. They certainly can improve and reduce grading variations by improving consistency. This will require hiring the best graders.
Hey shish, let me pose a hypothetical question. Let's suppose there are 2 - 3 major submitters to my hypothetical grading service: WSEU (we slab 'em up). Now each of these customers send me hundreds of coins a week. One of them expects 10% of his silver eagles to be graded MS-70. Another is a major market-maker in bulk gold. Anyway, I better keep them very happy. When they are not, they will call and bitch. If I don't satisfy them, they pull their business to my competition at YGYG (you get your grade). What do you think I should do? I have ten employees with families and expensive personal tastes to think about.
So when J.Q. five-coins-month bitches, I don't care. But my big customers? I may toss them a bone or loosen my normal standards just a tiny bit on liners. That keeps them happy until pressures in the coin market kick in and they are whining again. You see, it is a big game, keep everyone happy and if the grading standards I used in 2015 get a tiny bit looser by 2017 so what? I'm going to cook the frogs a little at a time and let some of them squawk. The search for "upgrades" and stickers keeps the coins churning $$$$$ through the market.
When "everybody that counts" knows the rules of the game and plays it well...my service (WSEU) helps add some stability to the market for those who are not qualified to be playing for whatever the reason.
I understand your point, I agree that what you describe continues to occur. BUT I have seen the grading standards get much more than "a tiny bit looser over the past few years. AU-58's are to often graded MS-61's. If they are going to change their grading standards then I suggest they be honest and change their definitions to accurately reflect their new standards. I realize that is not going to be popular but it's important to speak up and encourage the services to do better.
@shish said: "...BUT I have seen the grading standards get much more than "a tiny bit looser over the past few years. AU-58's are to often graded MS-61's. If they are going to change their grading standards then I suggest they be honest and change their definitions to accurately reflect their new standards. I realize that is not going to be popular but it's important to speak up and encourage the services to do better.
What you have described has been going on since the 1980's!!! Every one of the "players" knew it. The first time I ever saw a professional coin dealer divulge this to the general public (IN PRINT) occurred in the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs. I'm using the second edition so I cannot recall when the first edition was printed.
IMO, the TPGS are doing a good job under the circumstances. Once some types and compositions of MS graded coins could be actual AU's, the precision of strict "technical" grading was lost. Now you, me, the baker and three plus the four TPGS need to decide each time they see the same coin if it is AU, MS-62 (often still a true AU) or higher. It leaves a lot of "wiggle room" and subjectivity.
It's still a lot better than the 1960's and 70's when the business was really "wild."
If you read other threads, you'll see people griping about standards starting to tighten. That MAY be a reaction to pushing the line too far for a while. QDB has written about this grading effect (cycles) for decades, pre and post slab.
@shorecoll said: "If you read other threads, you'll see people griping about standards starting to tighten. That MAY be a reaction to pushing the line too far for a while. QDB has written about this grading effect (cycles) for decades, pre and post slab."
I'm not arguing as Bowers wrote about the big picture, pre and post slab. I'm focused on the big picture also. I am not talking about market cycles. These swings can happen over periods of years or months. Loose to tight, tight to loose. These swings happen at the TPGS's too.
I also write about the "trend." Grading has been changing for decades and the trend is toward a liberal interpretation of the previous "standards" for any period of time (a decade?) we choose to examine. That's why (the proof) over time, many previously graded coins rate an upgrade!
Re-iterating @MrEureka 's point about non-fungibility. Perhaps a non-CAC "A" brings $9250 and a CAC "B" brings $8000.
@TDN, years ago you made an excellent point in a post relating to bifurcation between PCGS and NGC levels at the time. I think it's underlying logic hold true.
Parenthetically, I sigh along with you, about this coin and in general.
IIRC your general premise was illustrative of the situation wherein PCGS 66 traded above NGC 66, NGC 66 traded above PCGS 65. which traded above NGC 65.... etc. Hopefully I got that right.
Now there is another ongoing bifurcation, that between "A" coins and "B" coins.
There are CAC 66 "B" coins some customers don't want to "settle" for, yet for which others will pay "over".
And 66+ "A" non-CAC sometimes brings higher than either.
There is no algorithm. Connecting the dots always involves discontinuous equations for outliers.
All generalizations are bad and some MS64+ MCMVII's are 12% more equal than others
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I was around in the 1988-1989 market full time, usually buying raw choice/gem seated/bust/barber type coins from major auctions/shows to be slabbed and then resold. My recollection was that in the area of seated dollars and trade dollars, I can't ever recall seeing a coin that wasn't all there for the grade in a PCGS MS65 holder....not in the early years. It was damn tough to make them. PCGS graded very few of them. MS64 was about the highest one usually got. In that period a MS65 bust/earlier seated coin was typically a heck of a coin, and about as high as you were gonna get. It was unusual to get a 66 on a bust or seated coin unless it was close to flawless via the unaided eye. The line on PCGS seated and trade dollars was held pretty tight, even into the 2003-2006 grade-flation era.
After 2 years of PCGS (mid-1988) they had graded a grand total of 13 MS65 Trade Dollars and 10 Seated Dollars. By summer 1989 the numbers were only 20/15....and this doesn't even include removing the re-submissions. Yeah, convince me that with those low numbers that low end coins sometimes/often made the grade. Probably, more like never. There was a reason why MS65 Seated dollars were worth $40K-$50K in mid-1989....trade dollars must have been up around $25-35K. I'd bet many or most of those PCGS coins are the 66's of today.
Most any PCGS MS65 seated dollar I saw in the 2002-2006 period was generally solid....certainly can't say that for NGC where most were low end or 64+'s. I can only recall one exception of a marginal coin slipping through...the dipped 1857 $ out of Vermeulle (Nov 2001) that was loaded with light obv hairlines. I graded the coin 64+ tops...as did the other bidders. The coin fetched $19,550 which in my mind was 64+ money. Ironically, it was offered to me a month or so later for $26K-$27K by Larry Whitlow...in a 65 holder. I had already passed at $20K...wasn't gonna pay $26K+.
@Wabbit2313 said:
PS, 9 of my 17 freshly graded coins that I sent in last week got a sticker. 1 of 3 OLD HOLDER coins got a sticker. Hogwash to overgrading right now.
You haven't seen any MS 66 Liberty Nickels in the new PCGS holder. Compare them to MS 66 Liberty Nickels graded five years ago or earlier. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with the series in this grade.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@Wabbit2313 said:
PS, 9 of my 17 freshly graded coins that I sent in last week got a sticker. 1 of 3 OLD HOLDER coins got a sticker. Hogwash to overgrading right now.
You haven't seen any MS 66 Liberty Nickels in the new PCGS holder. Compare them to MS 66 Liberty Nickels graded five years ago or earlier. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with the series in this grade.
I can't comment on hearsay, only facts, and my own facts state otherwise. Grading is tough right now. I would challenge anyone to crack out their old holders and send them in raw. You might find many of them going down, or worse, getting questionable toning, altered surfaces, etc.
@Wabbit2313 said:
PS, 9 of my 17 freshly graded coins that I sent in last week got a sticker. 1 of 3 OLD HOLDER coins got a sticker. Hogwash to overgrading right now.
You haven't seen any MS 66 Liberty Nickels in the new PCGS holder. Compare them to MS 66 Liberty Nickels graded five years ago or earlier. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with the series in this grade.
I can't comment on hearsay, only facts, and my own facts state otherwise. Grading is tough right now. I would challenge anyone to crack out their old holders and send them in raw. You might find many of them going down, or worse, getting questionable toning, altered surfaces, etc.
I will comment. I have seen so many overgraded ms66 lib nickels its really disappointing as I love the series and the coins look like old ms64-ms65's.
@roadrunner I dont think you can compare back to 1989 in terms of pops. I will somewhat argue that slabbing major collections did not become a thing until close to 2000? (I dont know the year at all but remember stacks and others had a raw section in their auction catalogs.)
I will say that if you look at pops from 1986-2010 vs 2010-2017 you will see pops multiplying exponentially in the last 7 years.
@roadrunner I dont think you can compare back to 1989 in terms of pops. I will somewhat argue that slabbing major collections did not become a thing until close to 2000? (I dont know the year at all but remember stacks and others had a raw section in their auction catalogs.)
I will say that if you look at pops from 1986-2010 vs 2010-2017 you will see pops multiplying exponentially in the last 7 years.
My point was that the entire high end of the coin market was available (via all major coin dealers) for slabbing, and phone number type prices....only if slabbed. Norweb came out in 1987/1988. The good coins were mostly bought by major dealers...and slabbed. While it's true that full slab auctions didn't come about routinely until the mid/later 1990's and early 2000's, the fact is that most of the major auction coins of note even in 1988/89 went to the slabbers starting with Norweb. Then the James A. Stack and Lovejoy dimes in 1990. Buddy Ebsen "shadow collection" in 1988/1989. Nearly all of the important raw coins in the 1987/1988/1989/1990 Apostrophe Auctions got slabbed if only for protection and/or identify their immediate market value for future heirs. I attended every major Stack's sale in 1988 and 1989 and the major dealers feasted over those raw coins. Their profits would coming from getting the slab grade they desired (or higher). That was the business model for many of them. Ask Colonel Jessup, Eric Streiner, Martin Paul, Stuart Levine, The Avena's, Jay Miller, etc. Martin Paul would typically buy 10-20% of every major auction. His submissions to NGC were easy to spot as they were significant coins with serial numbers ending in the mid double digits or higher (ie 50-100 coin submissions).
Anything that you wanted TOP TOP dollar for, went in for slabbing. Despite 3-4 yrs of many top coins showing up, my point is that only 15 MS65 Trade Dollars showed up at PCGS. That's pitiful. I mean, any coin in any collection or in any dealer's inventory (10,000 dealers) could have been sent in for grading. I sent in all of my collection for grading in 1988 just to see it how it measured up to the new standards. I didn't have any trade dollars. But I suspect 90% of what were sold as gem unc trade dollars from 1970-1986 were no better than 63/64 coins by 1988.
Pops increased exponentially after the coin market bottomed in 1995-1996...and Pittman and Eliasberg went to auction. From what I saw, most every major choice/gem unc seated, bust, Barber coin in Eliasberg went to slabbing. Why not? They were starting to grade-flate in 1997-1998. NGC offered dealers special low rates to send coins back in. They were starving for revenues. My local dealer sent in every old slab he could find...and got an 0.800 batting average on upgrades...probably making $50K-$100K. It was free money, literally. This brought a lot more slabbed and raw coins back to the TPG's. Yes, pops would explode from 1998-2008 as gradeflation encourage those coins to return. Today, a "gem 65" MS trade dollar is quite available because they are roughly equivalent to what was 63+ and 64 back in 1988. I'm not surprised that there are 171 PCGS MS65's slabbed today. Even cut in half or by 2/3 for resubmits, that's still 50-80 pieces...and a much different standard from what existed in 1988.
The Queller collection in 2003 was the last really major, high powered bust/seated auction I attended that was all raw. And no doubt, 75-95% of those coins ended up slabbed in short order. It didn't matter if the collector had a raw or slabbed collection from 1987-2004. In the end, the buyer's would evaluate them on what they could slab out in the current market....and slab/re-slab them. The beauty of immediately slabbing out a collection like Norweb was that you have a grade that everyone would mostly accept, and the price went with it. Instant liquidity at a top price....often sold sight/unseen over the phone. That could not be done near as easy (if at all) with 4-6 figure raw coins on the bourse.
Off-hand, I'd say the number of MS65 trade dollars graded from 1986-2010 FAR exceeds what has been seen from 2010-2017. And that's probably true for most MS63-66 type coins. I don't believe there's been an exponential increase in pops since 2010 unless it's for real common stuff like Morgans, moderns, commems, generic gold. Most of the better coins had been through the system by 2010....excepting a few occurrences like Newman and Pogue.
The pops are up from all the crackouts. Many, if not most, do not send the tags back in. For more reasons than the foolish couple of cents you get back for doing so.
I remember fighting for an MS65 grade for several years on a trade dollar that I graded gem purchased raw from auction in 2001.
First it was ‘the toning is neutral at best’. Then it was ‘the two upper stars are weak’.
Today that coin is probably head and shoulders above average for the grade - closer to 66 than 65. I also remember trying to make the first MS65 example of the 1877 date. I owned two of the finest MS64s that I could find over a decade. After being told they’d never grade 65, I sold them off ...and bought back the one that someone else upgraded. Today, there’s what - a dozen of them graded? And two 66s.
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
@tradedollarnut said:
I remember fighting for an MS65 grade for several years on a trade dollar that I graded gem purchased raw from auction in 2001.
First it was ‘the toning is neutral at best’. Then it was ‘the two upper stars are weak’.
Today that coin is probably head and shoulders above average for the grade - closer to 66 than 65. I also remember trying to make the first MS65 example of the 1877 date. I owned two of the finest MS64s that I could find over a decade. After being told they’d never grade 65, I sold them off ...and bought back the one that someone else upgraded. Today, there’s what - a dozen of them graded? And two 66s.
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
Grades tighten and loosen, or mistakes are made. One thing that never changes, these guys DO NOT like to be told they gave it the wrong grade. I once sent in 3 MS-66 1921 Morgans for regrade. 2 were clearly better than the one in an old green holder, which in my opinion was a 64. I was looking for a plus on the 2 better coins, or at least an admission that the OGH was wrong. Nope, all came back 66. They smelled what I was up to and didn't like it.
Telling/showing someone (even with obvious proof) that they possibly (heh, heh) made an error on a coin's grade is like questioning the size of...
Outside of a grading seminar, I have found very, very few professionals who will listen to reasons and look at the evidence. Fewer still will change their opinion. Just proves one thing - I can't grade.
RE: It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
+1
Gradeflation / slippery slope, and other industry shortcomings, are why I sold my $500,000+ gold collection a few years back. I have a handful of pieces left, but glad I moved on.
@tradedollarnut said:
I remember fighting for an MS65 grade for several years on a trade dollar that I graded gem purchased raw from auction in 2001.
First it was ‘the toning is neutral at best’. Then it was ‘the two upper stars are weak’.
Today that coin is probably head and shoulders above average for the grade - closer to 66 than 65. I also remember trying to make the first MS65 example of the 1877 date. I owned two of the finest MS64s that I could find over a decade. After being told they’d never grade 65, I sold them off ...and bought back the one that someone else upgraded. Today, there’s what - a dozen of them graded? And two 66s.
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
at pcgs the pop was 25/7 for ms65 and ms66 in January 2009. Currently its 34/8 so on the ms65 level an increase of 36%
at ngc the pop was 27/5 for ms65 and ms66 in August 2009. Currently its 28/7. Very good job NGC!
For the more common 1875-s T$1
at pcgs it was 20/13 in Jan 2009. Currently its 32/10 (an INCREASE POP OF 60% OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS)
ngc was 34/6 in oct 2009. Currently its 35/5
Very interesting that NGC has given out almost no ms65's and their coins have been hit even harder than pcgs. Basically all the ngc ms65's are the same ones that have been on the market since 2009 just posibly in a newer holder
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
Welcome to the club, albeit from the more shallow end of the pool.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
at pcgs the pop was 25/7 for ms65 and ms66 in January 2009. Currently its 34/8 so on the ms65 level an increase of 36%
at ngc the pop was 27/5 for ms65 and ms66 in August 2009. Currently its 28/7. Very good job NGC!
For the more common 1875-s T$1
at pcgs it was 20/13 in Jan 2009. Currently its 32/10 (an INCREASE POP OF 60% OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS)
ngc was 34/6 in oct 2009. Currently its 35/5
Very interesting that NGC has given out almost no ms65's and their coins have been hit even harder than pcgs. Basically all the ngc ms65's are the same ones that have been on the market since 2009 just posibly in a newer holder
What this tells me is that there have been PCGS crackouts and/or a bunch of crossovers from NGC. I never send them the tags back after I cross a coin!
at pcgs the pop was 25/7 for ms65 and ms66 in January 2009. Currently its 34/8 so on the ms65 level an increase of 36%
at ngc the pop was 27/5 for ms65 and ms66 in August 2009. Currently its 28/7. Very good job NGC!
For the more common 1875-s T$1
at pcgs it was 20/13 in Jan 2009. Currently its 32/10 (an INCREASE POP OF 60% OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS)
ngc was 34/6 in oct 2009. Currently its 35/5
Very interesting that NGC has given out almost no ms65's and their coins have been hit even harder than pcgs. Basically all the ngc ms65's are the same ones that have been on the market since 2009 just posibly in a newer holder
This is because of CAC whose influence really began to take hold in market pricing around 2009. The reason the NGC pops stayed the same was that anything crossable or crack worthy found its way to PCGS 65 where it was worth 15-40% more reholdered. And it's place in the NGC pops was taken by a PCGS/NGC PQ 64 coin that could upgrade to NGC 65 and be worth more. Lots more good coins heading over to PCGS to receive the higher premium. In 2009 that premium was on the order of 25-40% as NGC coins went begging. No one in the right mind is going to let a solid/stickered NGC gem trade dollar stay in that holder very long. Crack it out if you have to. It's free money with little downside.
When PCGS gem type coins only brought 5-15% premiums to NGC (2002-2008) all the liner coins gravitated to NGC where they got a 50-85% increase in value on an upgrade. That process has been in reversal for years now, increasing PCGS pops, and reducing net NGC pops.
@shish said:
I understand your point, I agree that what you describe continues to occur. BUT I have seen the grading standards get much more than "a tiny bit looser over the past few years. AU-58's are to often graded MS-61's. If they are going to change their grading standards then I suggest they be honest and change their definitions to accurately reflect their new standards. I realize that is not going to be popular but it's important to speak up and encourage the services to do better.
What's happening is they're "Netting them Up", meaning, here's a technical 58, but sure is pretty! 61!
(Or 62, or, rarely higher), because that is one gorgeous [technically] AU 58!!
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.
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
We might find it useful to understand that TPG's represent dealer's perspective to grading more than they do ccollector's grading perspective. Significantly, TPG's evolved from a dealer perspective. TDN reflects a collector's grading standard which will always be about one point less than a TPG's grade.
I would sugget that the TPG's align their grading standard to the collector and not the dealer in the market to maintain integrity for the hobby. The TPG's should serve the interests of collectors and not the interests of dealers. But this is not likely to happen as dealers provide a much larger income resource than do collectors. Dealers and TPG's are largely responsible for gradeflation as illustrated by the OP.
(Put all your TDs up at HA with no reserve then watch as the big buyers plan to divvy up your coins, then outbid and win most, then upgrade and resell, all in protest of gradeflation? Wow.)
Gradeflation, as predicted long ago, is ruining long-term coin collecting.
No doubt about it.
There are contributing factors. Although started with commendable ideals, CAC’s plan became doomed due to gradeflation.
CAC contributed to the bifurcated pricing by defining worthy and unworthy coins.
The recent downward price trend of the general coin market has been masked in higher grade/CAC-worthy coins by companies and people willing to outwardly and purposefully support and raise prices on CAC coins.
The market is simply balancing.
Now, since their opinion has not mirrored gradeflation, CAC is eventually facing obsolescence as an independent opinion.
With gradeflation, the CAC coin very quickly becomes an upgradable coin. If it upgrades to where it should be according to current standards, the bean is lost.
With gradeflation, all CAC coins will eventually grow out of their bean.
(In other words, if we die believing we have valuable beans, we will probably leave money on the table.)
If we thought:
“Maybe gradeflation is bad for coin collecting but all my coins deserved the upgrades,”
I will agree with specialist on this;
"never forget, the grading services do not maintain consistent grading teams. that could be part of the problem."
As for his/her remarks blaming collectors, crackout dealers, everyone, or stating that all the good stuff is gone therefore the grading services are seeing lesser quality coins. Regardless, I do not believe collectors are successfully pushing grading services to change their grades. Specialist offers many excuses for gradeflation, all which attempt to deflect responsibility from the grading services. To date I'm convinced that JA has proven once again that accurate and consistent grading standards are possible. Will CAC eventually face obsolescence as an independent opinion? only time will tell.
I'll repeat, The grading services hire the graders, they are responsible for maintaining consistent grading standards. The fact is they did a good job for many years and can continue to maintain accurate and consistent grading standards if you choose.
I understand that this will not maximize their profits, therefore may not be a popular course of action.
we all complain about gradeflation, none of us have stopped playing the game. we all still submit. its become a culture to everyone
the worst problem of all this: most new young dealers, never had to grade a raw coin. did not happen during their generation. they really have no idea how to grade. they learned by incorrect standards from the current plastic. the future is really scary for grading.
Yes, many of us complain about gradeflation and Yes "the worst problem of all this: most new young dealers, never had to grade a raw coin."
I don't understand why you continue to make false broad statements.
For example: "none of us have stopped playing the game" and "its become a culture to everyone."
No, some of us never played the game and it has not become a culture to everyone.
"The future is really scary for grading."
No, with a little education and practice most numismatists can learn to grade.
Comments
From a timing perspective, this is in a Gen 6.0 May 2015-Present holder.
TDN:
That's one of the reasons (in addition to affordability) that I enjoy collecting eye-appealing, well-struck, lustrous high-end AU-58's up to MS-64 graded coins -- which are priced on the flatter sloped asymptotic portion of the Price vs Grade Curve, before the prices escalate exponentially at higher grades.
I can select what IMO are GEM AU up to MS-64 high eye-appealing specimens for a fraction of the price of MS-65/66 and above, and get more enjoyment from the hobby with less concern about how Grade-flation may negatively impact the value of my collection.
Bottom line is I can have lots of fun for not a whole lot of money.
Here's one of my favorite examples of what IMO is a GEM AU-58 Eye-Appealing scarcer date CC Morgan Dollar.
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"
I agree that standards seem to have loosened since 10 years ago. As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Bruce, the sad fact of the matter is that if you have a nice for the grade MS 65 coin or better which you bought ten years ago or earlier, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not having it regraded before its sale. If you want specifics, I can provide them in a PM.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
There are only 30 PCGS graded 65's and 13 that are stickered. 12 graded higher
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Silly members... The obvious answer is the second Realone switched from Trade to Morgan dollars the whole series tanked
You joke, but seriously...
VAM prices to skyrocket in 3...2...1...
What this has done is completely destroy the sight seen coin trading network. This is 1 benefit of what CAC has done for coins since its inception. The vast majority of dealers acknowledge that John Albanese knows how to grade coins and any coin that he feels is solid for the grade and that he stickers can be assumed to be PQ and worth a large premium (I.e paying $9,000 vs $5500 for an ms65 trade dollar).
With CAC's money behind their stickered product, this helps ensure that only PQ coins are stickered as CAC is agreeing to buy any CAC coin that fits with their market (this is to exclude lots of coins that CAC just does not have an interest in buying or creating a market in like an 1881-s $1 in pcgs xf45 or 1894 50c in ngc f15 cac)
Even if a mistake then is made, if pointed out and John agrees he made a mistake he will offer to buy the coin and remove the sticker (as Ive seen done a couple of times)
Sadly I think the grading services already have placed the nail inside the coffins. They need to attract coins for submissions as that is their source of revenue. The only way that I see this problem being cleared up is when lower graded stickered coins are worth more than the above graded non stickered and people cross and downgrade to create value. This actually has happened (as you know) a couple of times on high ticket pieces- and especially ms65-ms66 saints (ms66 saints were at one point worth less than a stickered ms65
@specialist said: "...never forget, the grading services do not maintain consistent grading teams. that could be part of the problem."
Certainly could be but AFAIK, most of the graders have been at each major TPGS for years. And the finalizers don't change much. Yeah, once in awhile their are defections. One VIP went to NCG and one excellent foreign authenticator/ variety expert joined PCGS.
IMO, most of the grading upgrades comes from outside pressure and an effort to pay the light bills. In the late 1990's one major service had enough employees to fill a few picnic tables. Today, they would need a ballroom to have an X-mas party! Besides, it has been said that grading is evolving as the "experts" learn more.
IMHO. working at CAC would be easier than working at PCGS. Agree with a grade or not.
Bruce, when you ask who will step up and stop this, I would have answered you! If you and your circle of friends can't stop it, the rest of us are roadkill. I think JA is trying with his bean/approval stats on gold, but I would think only big dog collectors have a chance with the whole market. If even they don't, it's time to blow it up and start over.
Outside of the ugly toning on that coin, it is on par with many of the other 65's I looked at in sold auctions.
I am also of the mindset that grades have tightened significantly since spring of this year, and have proven my point in other posts. You can find the same overgraded coins in any generation holder if you look around. When walking the floor at shows, it feels that every OGH Morgan I pick up is overgraded by today's standards. The good ones have been pulled, cracked, regraded, or CAC'ed and put away for a rainy day.
Same trend in other coins, like the Lafayette Dollar. PCGS Guide for 65 was $11k several years ago, then trended downward to $5k-6k. Some of it was the market, but most of it was the stuff that started getting into 65 holders, much like the OP coin. Today, if a Lafayette in 65 doesn't have a green sticker, you really have no idea what you're going to get. Unfortunately, I don't get the sense that we're near the bottom of the slippery slope yet.
It is not just the grading services fault.
How many collectors have resubmitted their coins when they are all done or are ready to sell? The reason does not matter. Everyone wants an upgrade as reward. Everyone has forced the line to be pushed. The culture won't change now.
I disagree that "Everyone has forced the line to be pushed." The grading services hire the graders, they are responsible for maintaining consistent grading standards. To suggest that "Everyone wants an upgrade as reward forcing the line to be pushed is ridiculous. The grading services did a pretty good job for many years. They certainly can improve and reduce grading variations by improving consistency. This will require hiring the best graders.
PS, 9 of my 17 freshly graded coins that I sent in last week got a sticker. 1 of 3 OLD HOLDER coins got a sticker. Hogwash to overgrading right now.
That was funny!
Hey shish, let me pose a hypothetical question. Let's suppose there are 2 - 3 major submitters to my hypothetical grading service: WSEU (we slab 'em up). Now each of these customers send me hundreds of coins a week. One of them expects 10% of his silver eagles to be graded MS-70. Another is a major market-maker in bulk gold. Anyway, I better keep them very happy. When they are not, they will call and bitch. If I don't satisfy them, they pull their business to my competition at YGYG (you get your grade). What do you think I should do? I have ten employees with families and expensive personal tastes to think about.
So when J.Q. five-coins-month bitches, I don't care. But my big customers? I may toss them a bone or loosen my normal standards just a tiny bit on liners. That keeps them happy until pressures in the coin market kick in and they are whining again. You see, it is a big game, keep everyone happy and if the grading standards I used in 2015 get a tiny bit looser by 2017 so what? I'm going to cook the frogs a little at a time and let some of them squawk. The search for "upgrades" and stickers keeps the coins churning $$$$$ through the market.
When "everybody that counts" knows the rules of the game and plays it well...my service (WSEU) helps add some stability to the market for those who are not qualified to be playing for whatever the reason.
I understand your point, I agree that what you describe continues to occur. BUT I have seen the grading standards get much more than "a tiny bit looser over the past few years. AU-58's are to often graded MS-61's. If they are going to change their grading standards then I suggest they be honest and change their definitions to accurately reflect their new standards. I realize that is not going to be popular but it's important to speak up and encourage the services to do better.
Using computer scans for baseline technical grading would put an end to much of this.
"Eye appeal" can then revert to what it is: per the eye of the beholder.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
@shish said: "...BUT I have seen the grading standards get much more than "a tiny bit looser over the past few years. AU-58's are to often graded MS-61's. If they are going to change their grading standards then I suggest they be honest and change their definitions to accurately reflect their new standards. I realize that is not going to be popular but it's important to speak up and encourage the services to do better.
What you have described has been going on since the 1980's!!! Every one of the "players" knew it. The first time I ever saw a professional coin dealer divulge this to the general public (IN PRINT) occurred in the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs. I'm using the second edition so I cannot recall when the first edition was printed.
IMO, the TPGS are doing a good job under the circumstances. Once some types and compositions of MS graded coins could be actual AU's, the precision of strict "technical" grading was lost. Now you, me, the baker and three plus the four TPGS need to decide each time they see the same coin if it is AU, MS-62 (often still a true AU) or higher. It leaves a lot of "wiggle room" and subjectivity.
It's still a lot better than the 1960's and 70's when the business was really "wild."
If you read other threads, you'll see people griping about standards starting to tighten. That MAY be a reaction to pushing the line too far for a while. QDB has written about this grading effect (cycles) for decades, pre and post slab.
@shorecoll said: "If you read other threads, you'll see people griping about standards starting to tighten. That MAY be a reaction to pushing the line too far for a while. QDB has written about this grading effect (cycles) for decades, pre and post slab."
I'm not arguing as Bowers wrote about the big picture, pre and post slab. I'm focused on the big picture also. I am not talking about market cycles. These swings can happen over periods of years or months. Loose to tight, tight to loose. These swings happen at the TPGS's too.
I also write about the "trend." Grading has been changing for decades and the trend is toward a liberal interpretation of the previous "standards" for any period of time (a decade?) we choose to examine. That's why (the proof) over time, many previously graded coins rate an upgrade!
I think it's fairly easy to prove. Take a copy of the 1st edition of Photograde and a stack of slabbed 16-D dimes in G.
@FadeToBlack said: "This is what happens when PCGS can't find top-notch graders to fill their ranks after the rapid expansion of their business..."
Who are their graders?
Mr. Hall should move from CA to FL. Instant profit for the company!
Re-iterating @MrEureka 's point about non-fungibility. Perhaps a non-CAC "A" brings $9250 and a CAC "B" brings $8000.
@TDN, years ago you made an excellent point in a post relating to bifurcation between PCGS and NGC levels at the time. I think it's underlying logic hold true.
Parenthetically, I sigh along with you, about this coin and in general.
IIRC your general premise was illustrative of the situation wherein PCGS 66 traded above NGC 66, NGC 66 traded above PCGS 65. which traded above NGC 65.... etc. Hopefully I got that right.
Now there is another ongoing bifurcation, that between "A" coins and "B" coins.
There are CAC 66 "B" coins some customers don't want to "settle" for, yet for which others will pay "over".
And 66+ "A" non-CAC sometimes brings higher than either.
There is no algorithm. Connecting the dots always involves discontinuous equations for outliers.
All generalizations are bad and some MS64+ MCMVII's are 12% more equal than others
I was around in the 1988-1989 market full time, usually buying raw choice/gem seated/bust/barber type coins from major auctions/shows to be slabbed and then resold. My recollection was that in the area of seated dollars and trade dollars, I can't ever recall seeing a coin that wasn't all there for the grade in a PCGS MS65 holder....not in the early years. It was damn tough to make them. PCGS graded very few of them. MS64 was about the highest one usually got. In that period a MS65 bust/earlier seated coin was typically a heck of a coin, and about as high as you were gonna get. It was unusual to get a 66 on a bust or seated coin unless it was close to flawless via the unaided eye. The line on PCGS seated and trade dollars was held pretty tight, even into the 2003-2006 grade-flation era.
After 2 years of PCGS (mid-1988) they had graded a grand total of 13 MS65 Trade Dollars and 10 Seated Dollars. By summer 1989 the numbers were only 20/15....and this doesn't even include removing the re-submissions. Yeah, convince me that with those low numbers that low end coins sometimes/often made the grade. Probably, more like never. There was a reason why MS65 Seated dollars were worth $40K-$50K in mid-1989....trade dollars must have been up around $25-35K. I'd bet many or most of those PCGS coins are the 66's of today.
Most any PCGS MS65 seated dollar I saw in the 2002-2006 period was generally solid....certainly can't say that for NGC where most were low end or 64+'s. I can only recall one exception of a marginal coin slipping through...the dipped 1857 $ out of Vermeulle (Nov 2001) that was loaded with light obv hairlines. I graded the coin 64+ tops...as did the other bidders. The coin fetched $19,550 which in my mind was 64+ money. Ironically, it was offered to me a month or so later for $26K-$27K by Larry Whitlow...in a 65 holder. I had already passed at $20K...wasn't gonna pay $26K+.
You haven't seen any MS 66 Liberty Nickels in the new PCGS holder. Compare them to MS 66 Liberty Nickels graded five years ago or earlier. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with the series in this grade.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I can't comment on hearsay, only facts, and my own facts state otherwise. Grading is tough right now. I would challenge anyone to crack out their old holders and send them in raw. You might find many of them going down, or worse, getting questionable toning, altered surfaces, etc.
I will comment. I have seen so many overgraded ms66 lib nickels its really disappointing as I love the series and the coins look like old ms64-ms65's.
@roadrunner I dont think you can compare back to 1989 in terms of pops. I will somewhat argue that slabbing major collections did not become a thing until close to 2000? (I dont know the year at all but remember stacks and others had a raw section in their auction catalogs.)
I will say that if you look at pops from 1986-2010 vs 2010-2017 you will see pops multiplying exponentially in the last 7 years.
My point was that the entire high end of the coin market was available (via all major coin dealers) for slabbing, and phone number type prices....only if slabbed. Norweb came out in 1987/1988. The good coins were mostly bought by major dealers...and slabbed. While it's true that full slab auctions didn't come about routinely until the mid/later 1990's and early 2000's, the fact is that most of the major auction coins of note even in 1988/89 went to the slabbers starting with Norweb. Then the James A. Stack and Lovejoy dimes in 1990. Buddy Ebsen "shadow collection" in 1988/1989. Nearly all of the important raw coins in the 1987/1988/1989/1990 Apostrophe Auctions got slabbed if only for protection and/or identify their immediate market value for future heirs. I attended every major Stack's sale in 1988 and 1989 and the major dealers feasted over those raw coins. Their profits would coming from getting the slab grade they desired (or higher). That was the business model for many of them. Ask Colonel Jessup, Eric Streiner, Martin Paul, Stuart Levine, The Avena's, Jay Miller, etc. Martin Paul would typically buy 10-20% of every major auction. His submissions to NGC were easy to spot as they were significant coins with serial numbers ending in the mid double digits or higher (ie 50-100 coin submissions).
Anything that you wanted TOP TOP dollar for, went in for slabbing. Despite 3-4 yrs of many top coins showing up, my point is that only 15 MS65 Trade Dollars showed up at PCGS. That's pitiful. I mean, any coin in any collection or in any dealer's inventory (10,000 dealers) could have been sent in for grading. I sent in all of my collection for grading in 1988 just to see it how it measured up to the new standards. I didn't have any trade dollars. But I suspect 90% of what were sold as gem unc trade dollars from 1970-1986 were no better than 63/64 coins by 1988.
Pops increased exponentially after the coin market bottomed in 1995-1996...and Pittman and Eliasberg went to auction. From what I saw, most every major choice/gem unc seated, bust, Barber coin in Eliasberg went to slabbing. Why not? They were starting to grade-flate in 1997-1998. NGC offered dealers special low rates to send coins back in. They were starving for revenues. My local dealer sent in every old slab he could find...and got an 0.800 batting average on upgrades...probably making $50K-$100K. It was free money, literally. This brought a lot more slabbed and raw coins back to the TPG's. Yes, pops would explode from 1998-2008 as gradeflation encourage those coins to return. Today, a "gem 65" MS trade dollar is quite available because they are roughly equivalent to what was 63+ and 64 back in 1988. I'm not surprised that there are 171 PCGS MS65's slabbed today. Even cut in half or by 2/3 for resubmits, that's still 50-80 pieces...and a much different standard from what existed in 1988.
The Queller collection in 2003 was the last really major, high powered bust/seated auction I attended that was all raw. And no doubt, 75-95% of those coins ended up slabbed in short order. It didn't matter if the collector had a raw or slabbed collection from 1987-2004. In the end, the buyer's would evaluate them on what they could slab out in the current market....and slab/re-slab them. The beauty of immediately slabbing out a collection like Norweb was that you have a grade that everyone would mostly accept, and the price went with it. Instant liquidity at a top price....often sold sight/unseen over the phone. That could not be done near as easy (if at all) with 4-6 figure raw coins on the bourse.
Off-hand, I'd say the number of MS65 trade dollars graded from 1986-2010 FAR exceeds what has been seen from 2010-2017. And that's probably true for most MS63-66 type coins. I don't believe there's been an exponential increase in pops since 2010 unless it's for real common stuff like Morgans, moderns, commems, generic gold. Most of the better coins had been through the system by 2010....excepting a few occurrences like Newman and Pogue.
The pops are up from all the crackouts. Many, if not most, do not send the tags back in. For more reasons than the foolish couple of cents you get back for doing so.
I remember fighting for an MS65 grade for several years on a trade dollar that I graded gem purchased raw from auction in 2001.
First it was ‘the toning is neutral at best’. Then it was ‘the two upper stars are weak’.
Today that coin is probably head and shoulders above average for the grade - closer to 66 than 65. I also remember trying to make the first MS65 example of the 1877 date. I owned two of the finest MS64s that I could find over a decade. After being told they’d never grade 65, I sold them off ...and bought back the one that someone else upgraded. Today, there’s what - a dozen of them graded? And two 66s.
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
Grades tighten and loosen, or mistakes are made. One thing that never changes, these guys DO NOT like to be told they gave it the wrong grade. I once sent in 3 MS-66 1921 Morgans for regrade. 2 were clearly better than the one in an old green holder, which in my opinion was a 64. I was looking for a plus on the 2 better coins, or at least an admission that the OGH was wrong. Nope, all came back 66. They smelled what I was up to and didn't like it.
Telling/showing someone (even with obvious proof) that they possibly (heh, heh) made an error on a coin's grade is like questioning the size of...
Outside of a grading seminar, I have found very, very few professionals who will listen to reasons and look at the evidence. Fewer still will change their opinion. Just proves one thing - I can't grade.
RE:
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
+1
Gradeflation / slippery slope, and other industry shortcomings, are why I sold my $500,000+ gold collection a few years back. I have a handful of pieces left, but glad I moved on.
Agree.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
@roadrunner @tradedollarnut I just looked up the 1877-s T$1 pcgs ms65 which is the topic of this thread.
at pcgs the pop was 25/7 for ms65 and ms66 in January 2009. Currently its 34/8 so on the ms65 level an increase of 36%
at ngc the pop was 27/5 for ms65 and ms66 in August 2009. Currently its 28/7. Very good job NGC!
For the more common 1875-s T$1
at pcgs it was 20/13 in Jan 2009. Currently its 32/10 (an INCREASE POP OF 60% OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS)
ngc was 34/6 in oct 2009. Currently its 35/5
Very interesting that NGC has given out almost no ms65's and their coins have been hit even harder than pcgs. Basically all the ngc ms65's are the same ones that have been on the market since 2009 just posibly in a newer holder
The nicest trade dollar I have ever held was a 77s in 65 with Originaldan in Baltimore. If that one is the same grade the grading system is broken.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It feels like a slap in the face to have to go out and fight for the right grades on great coins and then turn around and see inferior coins receive the same grade.
Welcome to the club, albeit from the more shallow end of the pool.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
What this tells me is that there have been PCGS crackouts and/or a bunch of crossovers from NGC. I never send them the tags back after I cross a coin!
This is because of CAC whose influence really began to take hold in market pricing around 2009. The reason the NGC pops stayed the same was that anything crossable or crack worthy found its way to PCGS 65 where it was worth 15-40% more reholdered. And it's place in the NGC pops was taken by a PCGS/NGC PQ 64 coin that could upgrade to NGC 65 and be worth more. Lots more good coins heading over to PCGS to receive the higher premium. In 2009 that premium was on the order of 25-40% as NGC coins went begging. No one in the right mind is going to let a solid/stickered NGC gem trade dollar stay in that holder very long. Crack it out if you have to. It's free money with little downside.
When PCGS gem type coins only brought 5-15% premiums to NGC (2002-2008) all the liner coins gravitated to NGC where they got a 50-85% increase in value on an upgrade. That process has been in reversal for years now, increasing PCGS pops, and reducing net NGC pops.
What's happening is they're "Netting them Up", meaning, here's a technical 58, but sure is pretty! 61!
(Or 62, or, rarely higher), because that is one gorgeous [technically] AU 58!!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
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.
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
We might find it useful to understand that TPG's represent dealer's perspective to grading more than they do ccollector's grading perspective. Significantly, TPG's evolved from a dealer perspective. TDN reflects a collector's grading standard which will always be about one point less than a TPG's grade.
I would sugget that the TPG's align their grading standard to the collector and not the dealer in the market to maintain integrity for the hobby. The TPG's should serve the interests of collectors and not the interests of dealers. But this is not likely to happen as dealers provide a much larger income resource than do collectors. Dealers and TPG's are largely responsible for gradeflation as illustrated by the OP.
But now that the cows are out of the barn........
OINK
(Put all your TDs up at HA with no reserve then watch as the big buyers plan to divvy up your coins, then outbid and win most, then upgrade and resell, all in protest of gradeflation? Wow.)
Gradeflation, as predicted long ago, is ruining long-term coin collecting.
No doubt about it.
There are contributing factors. Although started with commendable ideals, CAC’s plan became doomed due to gradeflation.
CAC contributed to the bifurcated pricing by defining worthy and unworthy coins.
The recent downward price trend of the general coin market has been masked in higher grade/CAC-worthy coins by companies and people willing to outwardly and purposefully support and raise prices on CAC coins.
The market is simply balancing.
Now, since their opinion has not mirrored gradeflation, CAC is eventually facing obsolescence as an independent opinion.
With gradeflation, the CAC coin very quickly becomes an upgradable coin. If it upgrades to where it should be according to current standards, the bean is lost.
With gradeflation, all CAC coins will eventually grow out of their bean.
(In other words, if we die believing we have valuable beans, we will probably leave money on the table.)
If we thought:
“Maybe gradeflation is bad for coin collecting but all my coins deserved the upgrades,”
well, it’s too late now.
We had our chance...
I will agree with specialist on this;
"never forget, the grading services do not maintain consistent grading teams. that could be part of the problem."
As for his/her remarks blaming collectors, crackout dealers, everyone, or stating that all the good stuff is gone therefore the grading services are seeing lesser quality coins. Regardless, I do not believe collectors are successfully pushing grading services to change their grades. Specialist offers many excuses for gradeflation, all which attempt to deflect responsibility from the grading services. To date I'm convinced that JA has proven once again that accurate and consistent grading standards are possible. Will CAC eventually face obsolescence as an independent opinion? only time will tell.
I'll repeat, The grading services hire the graders, they are responsible for maintaining consistent grading standards. The fact is they did a good job for many years and can continue to maintain accurate and consistent grading standards if you choose.
I understand that this will not maximize their profits, therefore may not be a popular course of action.
we all complain about gradeflation, none of us have stopped playing the game. we all still submit. its become a culture to everyone
the worst problem of all this: most new young dealers, never had to grade a raw coin. did not happen during their generation. they really have no idea how to grade. they learned by incorrect standards from the current plastic. the future is really scary for grading.
Yes, many of us complain about gradeflation and Yes "the worst problem of all this: most new young dealers, never had to grade a raw coin."
I don't understand why you continue to make false broad statements.
For example: "none of us have stopped playing the game" and "its become a culture to everyone."
No, some of us never played the game and it has not become a culture to everyone.
"The future is really scary for grading."
No, with a little education and practice most numismatists can learn to grade.