As a retired diamond grader (which has many similarities with a coin grader), I have always maintained the most important aspect of my grading skills is consistency. What I have graded a 1 carat diamond in the past as a E color, VS-1 clarity diamond should be the same grade when I see it 5 years later.
Here in Canada, the company ICCS has been fairly consistent over the years (they have other issues that need fixing, but this is not the place for that discussion).
What I have found to be PCGS's problem (and I may be totally off base here as it is my personal opinion only) is a pattern of 'roller coaster' grading of being strict, then being easy, then being strict again, over a long period of time.
I still consider them the best grading company in the world for US and World coins (except for Canadian coins) but I am concerned why at times, they do a 'severe' correction of their grading standards.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How would you handle the ones out there if it were to end, if it were your decision/business?
I wouldn't abandon the legacy (or grandfathered coins with + designations). I would simply announce that plus designation would no longer be used until we found near-100% consistency with the current scale. I think collectors would understand.
John Feigenbaum Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com) PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Diamonds have the benefit of "master stones"
Direct comparison for color is a huge advantage over coins.
The remainder, clarity, doesn't take an eternity to learn.
@topstuf said:
Diamonds have the benefit of "master stones"
Direct comparison for color is a huge advantage over coins.
The remainder, clarity, doesn't take an eternity to learn.
Maybe you haven't ever graded diamonds.
But with that said, I get your point.
But clarity, which as you say 'doesn't take an eternity to learn' is exactly the same as grading and separating an ms64 Morgan from an ms65 Morgan.
More consistency should be the end result and the primary goal of any grading (or appraising) business.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
I have no doubt that PCGS has been tighter in recent months, but do you know why? I don't.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
You may not care about innovation but it's important to others, to the hobby, to the market, and to PCGS's bottom line. The registry set was certainly a brilliant innovation. Cert verification with imaging was certainly an important innovation, even if obvious and not especially "brilliant". Someday, a completely new form of slab will be invented, something far less bulky than current slabs, and suited for storage in an reasonably compact album of some sort. And probably within the next decade or two, the innovators will bring us far more consistent grading and more sophisticated counterfeit detection via computer assisted grading.
That's like saying you want to engineer a better car engine with more torque and better gas mileage when the car has two flat tires. You still aren't going anywhere.
Cut through it all, that little grade number that goes on the slabs is the essence of the entity. If that can no longer be trusted, nothing else matters.
I had another analogy about what body part proved they were the most important, but this keeps it PG.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
I agree with much of what amwldcoin has said. I stopped sending in coins to PCGS for many years. I dropped my membership in the Collector's Club many years ago. I prefer PCGS coins and when I buy, it is a coin in a PCGS holder. I did get a wild hair a few months back and sent in 6 coins for regrading that I have held for a very long time. They were in OGH holders and were submitted by HLRC. Some of the coins I had owned for up to 30 years. 4 of the coins upgraded and 2 did not. The largest jump was 10 pts. The two that did not were the most obviously under graded coins in my quarter collections. Both were Standing Liberty Quarters. One was a 1916 and the other a 1920D. That experience reminded me of a letter that I still have from Q. David Bowers dated April 29, 1996. In that letter he states the following: "that sometimes PCGS often grades coins erratically". The letter is a little odd as it uses "sometimes" and "often" in the same sentence. Huh. However, I did get the gist of what he was saying in that letter.
I would never profess to be an expert in all grading. I do know how to grade Standing Liberty Quarters. In grading circulated Standing Liberty Quarters, PCGS often ignores the originality of a coin when grading. In the grade of AU 58 they love dipped coins with that bright white look. I don't have these in my Registry Sets. I actually have downgraded coins in my sets when a more original coin comes along.
Don Willis threatened to ban me from the forums a few years back. I have posted on the forums a whole lot less since that time. My life won't end if I am banned, but I am not a fan of censoring the truth. just sayin...mighthunter
Not only should + grading NOT be abandoned- it should be EXPANDED to include the 69 grade as soon as possible. In my opinion, this is what collectors want. In fact, I do not recall speaking to a single collector of modern coins who wanted + grading dropped. I know I have close to (50) active registry sets going right now (classic and modern) and as a two time registry “Hall of Famer”, I personally want to see the + grading expanded.
The future of PCGS is with moderns - plain and simple. I think Joe Orlando gets this. It’s one reason PSA is booming and he now essentially “runs everything” at CU.
Just my two cents.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Lets just hope who ever PCGS picks, goes back to basics. only problem, if it is the kid the rumors are about, what standards does he really know? I know major dealers who can't grade for their lives yet established themselves as big shots because they look at the holders and get convinced of the grades.
This is PCGS forever last chance to make it all right. If they try hard, they can!
When I view and grade coins in an auction, I will not only use minus signs, but I'll vary the length of the minus sign based on how little I like the coin at the grade. I'll also use multiple plus signs when I think a single plus sign is not enough. If PCGS is interested in licensing this system from me, I'd be glad to negotiate a deal with them.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Standards for technical grading can be programmed. Coins can be scanned to apply that standard, and thereby "fingerprinted" as well. Leave the eye appeal, quality of toning, etc., to the marketplace.
That'd kill resubmissions and revenue massively over time, of course. But then you'd have your consistency.
If the company is so tight then cac approval rates and gold sticker must be high, as JA is pretty objective in his standards. Apparently netting coins down a little for minor problems has been replaced with more no grades. If the current standards are so tight, that should also show up in higher guarantee submission refunds on previously graded coins that would not grade the same by their current tight standards.
@Insider2 said: @MrEureka asked: "...what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?"
Are you referring to Ms. Boyd taking over CU?
Suckup.
Ms. Boyd has nothing to offer me at all EXCEPT a chance to meet her. I lived for seventy years w/o posting on an Internet coin form. I had more time for my hobbies without sharing/reading info on a coin forum. When I was banned, I could still read the good info on this one. However, the occasional misinformed post made me tear my hair out!
Anyway, I think you have confused my attempt at HUMOR just as I may have confused your attempt which is actually more funny than mine!
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
Remember when all the ANACS MS-65's became 63's in order to adjust to the commercial market? Many things in this world operate as a pendulum. First they swing one way and then the other. The best position might be at rest, right in the middle and "fixed" forever.
I've been personally involved with the theory, development, and practice of coin grading since 1973. Decades ago, the coin grading pendulum jumped its attachment to anything and fell into the bottom of its case. It would take an expert repair to salvage the clock it in a way that would make everyone happy with the result. IMO, it could be done. Perhaps that is what our host has in mind.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How would you handle the ones out there if it were to end, if it were your decision/business?
I wouldn't abandon the legacy (or grandfathered coins with + designations). I would simply announce that plus designation would no longer be used until we found near-100% consistency with the current scale. I think collectors would understand.
Fair enough, John.
I don't have any "+" coins on the slab grade, as I have never sent any back in to try for it (I do have some I think would get it, particularly some half cents and silver roosies), but I won't how the market would handle an existing population of "+" with a statement that no more would be created?
So, those with them would likely see the prices really increase as, per registry, they are worth more (unless PCGS were the downgrade their registry value to that of the same non-plus grade....which would likely really tweak some people), and those with new submissions could never equal that value (unless the coin grades higher, maybe, than it should (gradeflation).
@Insider2 said:
It would take an expert repair to salvage the clock it in a way that would make everyone happy with the result. IMO, it could be done. Perhaps that is what our host has in mind.
It can be done, but I don't think any of the major players understand the inherent problem.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I have no doubt that PCGS has been tighter in recent months, but do you know why? I don't.
I recall from one of Scott Travers' books that grading standards tend to tighten in down markets and loosen in up markets. The current "tightening" would be consistent with that. I will have to re-read the discussion around that because, in theory, I would think graders would or should not be influenced by market forces to tighten or loosen grading.
AI and machine learning have changed the world. They will change this one as well if there is a business case. Humans are inconsistent. Want to know the price, ask a dealer. Want to know the technical grade, ask the computer. Need additional attributes, then add them. Let the AI "learn" from the known population and fingerprint each coin it sees.
I seriously doubt there is ANY interest in grading consistency among collectors and dealers. If grading becomes science, all that is left of this hobby is the purchase.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
@Insider2 said: @MrEureka asked: "...what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?"
Are you referring to Ms. Boyd taking over CU?
Suckup.
Ms. Boyd has nothing to offer me at all EXCEPT a chance to meet her. I lived for seventy years w/o posting on an Internet coin form. I had more time for my hobbies without sharing/reading info on a coin forum. When I was banned, I could still read the good info on this one. However, the occasional misinformed post made me tear my hair out!
Anyway, I think you have confused my attempt at HUMOR just as I may have confused your attempt which is actually more funny than mine!
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
Remember when all the ANACS MS-65's became 63's in order to adjust to the commercial market? Many things in this world operate as a pendulum. First they swing one way and then the other. The best position might be at rest, right in the middle and "fixed" forever.
I've been personally involved with the theory, development, and practice of coin grading since 1973. Decades ago, the coin grading pendulum jumped its attachment to anything and fell into the bottom of its case. It would take an expert repair to salvage the clock it in a way that would make everyone happy with the result. IMO, it could be done. Perhaps that is what our host has in mind.
Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
IMO, the ANA Grading Guide introduced some of our problems when it combined the # of marks on the coin with the amount of wear. To be precise, the only criteria for grading a coin from MS-60 down should be the amount of detail that is lost. That way a coin with a nice strike, virtually mark-free fields would go from AU-58 ("Very Choice" in the new edition) to AU-55 (Still Very Choice) to AU-50 (Still Very Choice). None of this AU "typical" BS. A baggy MS-60 would drop to a baggy AU-58 with some wear. Right now, There are possibly less than a dozen members here on this forum who can describe what an AU-53 $20 Liberty should look like to all of us using the present standards. Will it have a little friction and lots of marks or will it be worn down close to XF? >
BlindedByEgo Wrote: "Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
I'd like to meet Mr. Humour. LOL, I get it and that's really very funny!
@Insider2 said:
IMO, the ANA Grading Guide introduced some of our problems when it combined the # of marks on the coin with the amount of wear. To be precise, the only criteria for grading a coin from MS-60 down should be the amount of detail that is lost. That way a coin with a nice strike, virtually mark-free fields would go from AU-58 ("Very Choice" in the new edition) to AU-55 (Still Very Choice) to AU-50 (Still Very Choice). None of this AU "typical" BS. A baggy MS-60 would drop to a baggy AU-58 with some wear. Right now, There are possibly less than a dozen members here on this forum who can describe what an AU-53 $20 Liberty should look like to all of us using the present standards. Will it have a little friction and lots of marks or will it be worn down close to XF? >
BlindedByEgo Wrote: "Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
I'd like to meet Mr. Humour. LOL, I get it and that's really very funny!
Is Mr. Humour the British cousin of Mr. Humor?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The grading services would increase submissions if they went to give 2 grades to a coin, technical / market value.
The original ANA photo service gave a grade to each side of the coin Obv /Rev. I believe their assessments were based more on the Tech side than the market aspect.
For a sight unseen market Technical / Market, we'd have a much better idea of what to expect with a coin graded " 58 (tech )/ 62(market) vs a 58/58.
It's gotten to a point where today a MS62 might be a truly unc coin with distractions or that great looking slider with a 64 look.
If the TPGS were to start such designations, they certainly would get a lot of coins back in to be graded.
Gives TPGS the growth option to get even more accurate T/M Obv / T/M Rev
and of course why not go to the extreme of grading the rim!
Even though that may seem way overboard, I'd like that info on a 100K coin
By isolating the “market” grade, wouldn’t that open up a can of potential litigation for the TPG from those who disagree (especially if significantly undervaluing expensive coins)?
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How would you handle the ones out there if it were to end, if it were your decision/business?
I wouldn't abandon the legacy (or grandfathered coins with + designations). I would simply announce that plus designation would no longer be used until we found near-100% consistency with the current scale. I think collectors would understand.
@wondercoin said:
Not only should + grading NOT be abandoned- it should be EXPANDED to include the 69 grade as soon as possible. In my opinion, this is what collectors want.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How do they complicate the grading process...? The + designation is one of the best things that has ever happened to the grading market.
The + side of the grading process is one where I really aree with CAC. I ignore it too. I can't see paying 4X the money for a WLH in a 67'plus' when the difference is negligble and the grade may change depending on who and when it is viewed by. I recently purchased a nice Walker MS67 for a bit more than $2000.00 where another at the same sale-same grade, but with the plus went for over 8,000.00. Imo, the coin I purchased was the better coin by far! After all, grading is subjective.
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
@Insider2 said:
IMO, the ANA Grading Guide introduced some of our problems when it combined the # of marks on the coin with the amount of wear. To be precise, the only criteria for grading a coin from MS-60 down should be the amount of detail that is lost. That way a coin with a nice strike, virtually mark-free fields would go from AU-58 ("Very Choice" in the new edition) to AU-55 (Still Very Choice) to AU-50 (Still Very Choice). None of this AU "typical" BS. A baggy MS-60 would drop to a baggy AU-58 with some wear. Right now, There are possibly less than a dozen members here on this forum who can describe what an AU-53 $20 Liberty should look like to all of us using the present standards. Will it have a little friction and lots of marks or will it be worn down close to XF? >
BlindedByEgo Wrote: "Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
I'd like to meet Mr. Humour. LOL, I get it and that's really very funny!
Is Mr. Humour the British cousin of Mr. Humor?
It is the correct spelling of humour, whether or not spell-check here likes it.
@dpoole said:
If you want to speculate about the future:
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
You have to remember, PCGS tried to make this work. It didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, David Hall spent a good load of cash on the project...
@dpoole said:
If you want to speculate about the future:
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
You have to remember, PCGS tried to make this work. It didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, David Hall spent a good load of cash on the project...
@dpoole said:
If you want to speculate about the future:
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
You have to remember, PCGS tried to make this work. It didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, David Hall spent a good load of cash on the project...
Yes, I remember. But it's been awhile.
Yes, and they tried a second time too. The rocket scientist told PCGS that it's impossible and the computer programme would just make the same mistake as previously.
"Yes, and they tried a second time too. The rocket scientist told PCGS that it's impossible and the computer programme would just make the same mistake as previously."
I did not know that. I'd expected that technology in its present state was sufficient to do that task.
Well, I certainly defer to people who know more about this stuff than I do.
Like I tell my kid (an engineer): I'm a liberal arts major.
Cars can drive themselves and identify objects around them. They can’t tell if the billboard is funny or if the lady in the next car is pretty. They also can’t tell if the marks on the guardrail were made by a car, a rock, or were there when it left the factory.
As a saint collector, I find it very hard to locate a MS64 that I like.
About 1 in 15 MS65 coins is nice.
1 in 5 for MS66
Here is the peculiar thing though, I'm very near 1 in 5 for MS65+ also.
Almost the same as a higher numerical value except the price is much better.
This is why I really like the +
I'd much rather have a + than a CAC but the bean seems to be hot right now.
So far as gradeflation goes, saints seem to be pretty consistent through the years.
I think most of the confusion in the series stems from a few date/mint coins that are only consistent within that date/mint.
A 1920-S in MS64 is going to be a nice looking coin whereas a 1920-P in MS64 is going to look like a bag of ugly frogs.
@dpoole said:
If you want to speculate about the future:
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
You have to remember, PCGS tried to make this work. It didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, David Hall spent a good load of cash on the project...
Yes, I remember. But it's been awhile.
Yes, and they tried a second time too. The rocket scientist told PCGS that it's impossible and the computer programme would just make the same mistake as previously.
As long as eye appeal is a grading factor, computers will never be able to grade coins. Also, when PCGS tried computer grading, they still needed to have a human finalizer evaluate each coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Comments
What I remember is Don had a heavy hand when he first became President. Quite a few members banned, never to return.
A loose standard has caused far more losses than a tight standard imo.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Re future changes.........
As a retired diamond grader (which has many similarities with a coin grader), I have always maintained the most important aspect of my grading skills is consistency. What I have graded a 1 carat diamond in the past as a E color, VS-1 clarity diamond should be the same grade when I see it 5 years later.
Here in Canada, the company ICCS has been fairly consistent over the years (they have other issues that need fixing, but this is not the place for that discussion).
What I have found to be PCGS's problem (and I may be totally off base here as it is my personal opinion only) is a pattern of 'roller coaster' grading of being strict, then being easy, then being strict again, over a long period of time.
I still consider them the best grading company in the world for US and World coins (except for Canadian coins) but I am concerned why at times, they do a 'severe' correction of their grading standards.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I wouldn't abandon the legacy (or grandfathered coins with + designations). I would simply announce that plus designation would no longer be used until we found near-100% consistency with the current scale. I think collectors would understand.
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Diamonds have the benefit of "master stones"
Direct comparison for color is a huge advantage over coins.
The remainder, clarity, doesn't take an eternity to learn.
Maybe you haven't ever graded diamonds.
But with that said, I get your point.
But clarity, which as you say 'doesn't take an eternity to learn' is exactly the same as grading and separating an ms64 Morgan from an ms65 Morgan.
More consistency should be the end result and the primary goal of any grading (or appraising) business.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Maybe different graders or different coins?
That's like saying you want to engineer a better car engine with more torque and better gas mileage when the car has two flat tires. You still aren't going anywhere.
Cut through it all, that little grade number that goes on the slabs is the essence of the entity. If that can no longer be trusted, nothing else matters.
I had another analogy about what body part proved they were the most important, but this keeps it PG.
I agree with much of what amwldcoin has said. I stopped sending in coins to PCGS for many years. I dropped my membership in the Collector's Club many years ago. I prefer PCGS coins and when I buy, it is a coin in a PCGS holder. I did get a wild hair a few months back and sent in 6 coins for regrading that I have held for a very long time. They were in OGH holders and were submitted by HLRC. Some of the coins I had owned for up to 30 years. 4 of the coins upgraded and 2 did not. The largest jump was 10 pts. The two that did not were the most obviously under graded coins in my quarter collections. Both were Standing Liberty Quarters. One was a 1916 and the other a 1920D. That experience reminded me of a letter that I still have from Q. David Bowers dated April 29, 1996. In that letter he states the following: "that sometimes PCGS often grades coins erratically". The letter is a little odd as it uses "sometimes" and "often" in the same sentence. Huh. However, I did get the gist of what he was saying in that letter.
I would never profess to be an expert in all grading. I do know how to grade Standing Liberty Quarters. In grading circulated Standing Liberty Quarters, PCGS often ignores the originality of a coin when grading. In the grade of AU 58 they love dipped coins with that bright white look. I don't have these in my Registry Sets. I actually have downgraded coins in my sets when a more original coin comes along.
Don Willis threatened to ban me from the forums a few years back. I have posted on the forums a whole lot less since that time. My life won't end if I am banned, but I am not a fan of censoring the truth. just sayin...mighthunter
Not only should + grading NOT be abandoned- it should be EXPANDED to include the 69 grade as soon as possible. In my opinion, this is what collectors want. In fact, I do not recall speaking to a single collector of modern coins who wanted + grading dropped. I know I have close to (50) active registry sets going right now (classic and modern) and as a two time registry “Hall of Famer”, I personally want to see the + grading expanded.
The future of PCGS is with moderns - plain and simple. I think Joe Orlando gets this. It’s one reason PSA is booming and he now essentially “runs everything” at CU.
Just my two cents.
Wondercoin.
A 69+ really?
Lets just hope who ever PCGS picks, goes back to basics. only problem, if it is the kid the rumors are about, what standards does he really know? I know major dealers who can't grade for their lives yet established themselves as big shots because they look at the holders and get convinced of the grades.
This is PCGS forever last chance to make it all right. If they try hard, they can!
Innovation? Add the - grade
Heh heh heh
When I view and grade coins in an auction, I will not only use minus signs, but I'll vary the length of the minus sign based on how little I like the coin at the grade. I'll also use multiple plus signs when I think a single plus sign is not enough. If PCGS is interested in licensing this system from me, I'd be glad to negotiate a deal with them.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I was threatened once by HRH and once by DW, but I'm not done yet!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Standards for technical grading can be programmed. Coins can be scanned to apply that standard, and thereby "fingerprinted" as well. Leave the eye appeal, quality of toning, etc., to the marketplace.
That'd kill resubmissions and revenue massively over time, of course. But then you'd have your consistency.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
If the company is so tight then cac approval rates and gold sticker must be high, as JA is pretty objective in his standards. Apparently netting coins down a little for minor problems has been replaced with more no grades. If the current standards are so tight, that should also show up in higher guarantee submission refunds on previously graded coins that would not grade the same by their current tight standards.
sounds like a dare. lol
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
Ms. Boyd has nothing to offer me at all EXCEPT a chance to meet her. I lived for seventy years w/o posting on an Internet coin form. I had more time for my hobbies without sharing/reading info on a coin forum. When I was banned, I could still read the good info on this one. However, the occasional misinformed post made me tear my hair out!
Anyway, I think you have confused my attempt at HUMOR just as I may have confused your attempt which is actually more funny than mine!
Remember when all the ANACS MS-65's became 63's in order to adjust to the commercial market? Many things in this world operate as a pendulum. First they swing one way and then the other. The best position might be at rest, right in the middle and "fixed" forever.
I've been personally involved with the theory, development, and practice of coin grading since 1973. Decades ago, the coin grading pendulum jumped its attachment to anything and fell into the bottom of its case. It would take an expert repair to salvage the clock it in a way that would make everyone happy with the result. IMO, it could be done. Perhaps that is what our host has in mind.
Fair enough, John.
I don't have any "+" coins on the slab grade, as I have never sent any back in to try for it (I do have some I think would get it, particularly some half cents and silver roosies), but I won't how the market would handle an existing population of "+" with a statement that no more would be created?
So, those with them would likely see the prices really increase as, per registry, they are worth more (unless PCGS were the downgrade their registry value to that of the same non-plus grade....which would likely really tweak some people), and those with new submissions could never equal that value (unless the coin grades higher, maybe, than it should (gradeflation).
I just see this as a few catch-22s now.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
It can be done, but I don't think any of the major players understand the inherent problem.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Don had a "Heavy Hand" when he first became President. Banned some members, who alas, never came back.
The only constant in life is change...
I recall from one of Scott Travers' books that grading standards tend to tighten in down markets and loosen in up markets. The current "tightening" would be consistent with that. I will have to re-read the discussion around that because, in theory, I would think graders would or should not be influenced by market forces to tighten or loosen grading.
I like Don and wish him the very best
carolinacollectorcoins.com
AI and machine learning have changed the world. They will change this one as well if there is a business case. Humans are inconsistent. Want to know the price, ask a dealer. Want to know the technical grade, ask the computer. Need additional attributes, then add them. Let the AI "learn" from the known population and fingerprint each coin it sees.
I seriously doubt there is ANY interest in grading consistency among collectors and dealers. If grading becomes science, all that is left of this hobby is the purchase.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
IMO, the ANA Grading Guide introduced some of our problems when it combined the # of marks on the coin with the amount of wear. To be precise, the only criteria for grading a coin from MS-60 down should be the amount of detail that is lost. That way a coin with a nice strike, virtually mark-free fields would go from AU-58 ("Very Choice" in the new edition) to AU-55 (Still Very Choice) to AU-50 (Still Very Choice). None of this AU "typical" BS. A baggy MS-60 would drop to a baggy AU-58 with some wear. Right now, There are possibly less than a dozen members here on this forum who can describe what an AU-53 $20 Liberty should look like to all of us using the present standards. Will it have a little friction and lots of marks or will it be worn down close to XF? >
BlindedByEgo Wrote: "Dear Mr Insider, please let me introduce you to Mr Humour and Mr Brevity, two gentlemen with whom you might well get acquainted.
I'd like to meet Mr. Humour. LOL, I get it and that's really very funny!
Is Mr. Humour the British cousin of Mr. Humor?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The grading services would increase submissions if they went to give 2 grades to a coin, technical / market value.
The original ANA photo service gave a grade to each side of the coin Obv /Rev. I believe their assessments were based more on the Tech side than the market aspect.
For a sight unseen market Technical / Market, we'd have a much better idea of what to expect with a coin graded " 58 (tech )/ 62(market) vs a 58/58.
It's gotten to a point where today a MS62 might be a truly unc coin with distractions or that great looking slider with a 64 look.
If the TPGS were to start such designations, they certainly would get a lot of coins back in to be graded.
Gives TPGS the growth option to get even more accurate T/M Obv / T/M Rev
and of course why not go to the extreme of grading the rim!
Even though that may seem way overboard, I'd like that info on a 100K coin
By isolating the “market” grade, wouldn’t that open up a can of potential litigation for the TPG from those who disagree (especially if significantly undervaluing expensive coins)?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
How do you split near zero into two?
I appreciate the spelling!
Smitten with DBLCs.
The + side of the grading process is one where I really aree with CAC. I ignore it too. I can't see paying 4X the money for a WLH in a 67'plus' when the difference is negligble and the grade may change depending on who and when it is viewed by. I recently purchased a nice Walker MS67 for a bit more than $2000.00 where another at the same sale-same grade, but with the plus went for over 8,000.00. Imo, the coin I purchased was the better coin by far! After all, grading is subjective.
I'm a millennial, can you please explain to me what I'm looking at?
If you want to speculate about the future:
Imagine standards set, programmed and scanable. Every collector or dealer can download the app, and apply it with their phone or phaser or whatever to any coin. The program technically evaluates (grades or checks for authenticity) the coin, and/or identifies it from the existing database.
No more people, no more opinions (save for individual taste). No more coin grading services (except for PCGS, of course, which would market the app).
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Most of them are back under new names.
It is the correct spelling of humour, whether or not spell-check here likes it.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
You have to remember, PCGS tried to make this work. It didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, David Hall spent a good load of cash on the project...
Yes, I remember. But it's been awhile.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Yes, and they tried a second time too. The rocket scientist told PCGS that it's impossible and the computer programme would just make the same mistake as previously.
"Yes, and they tried a second time too. The rocket scientist told PCGS that it's impossible and the computer programme would just make the same mistake as previously."
I did not know that. I'd expected that technology in its present state was sufficient to do that task.
Well, I certainly defer to people who know more about this stuff than I do.
Like I tell my kid (an engineer): I'm a liberal arts major.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
http://coin.shouxi.com/news/industry/2018/1119/4976.html
If you can read it. LOL.
Cars can drive themselves and identify objects around them. They can’t tell if the billboard is funny or if the lady in the next car is pretty. They also can’t tell if the marks on the guardrail were made by a car, a rock, or were there when it left the factory.
Wait...... what was this thread about???
I think I will wait till the dusk settle in PCGS before I submit again.
Some have made comments about the + grades!
My view is that it is too hard to but the Jeanie back in the bottle after it has been opened.
I don't understand the reason for the dislike of + grading?
We all know that many coins "just miss" making the next grade higher,,, thus the + grade.
Me too... the dust, the dusk, whatever.
When the grades aren't legit, do not resubmit.
As a saint collector, I find it very hard to locate a MS64 that I like.
About 1 in 15 MS65 coins is nice.
1 in 5 for MS66
Here is the peculiar thing though, I'm very near 1 in 5 for MS65+ also.
Almost the same as a higher numerical value except the price is much better.
This is why I really like the +
I'd much rather have a + than a CAC but the bean seems to be hot right now.
So far as gradeflation goes, saints seem to be pretty consistent through the years.
I think most of the confusion in the series stems from a few date/mint coins that are only consistent within that date/mint.
A 1920-S in MS64 is going to be a nice looking coin whereas a 1920-P in MS64 is going to look like a bag of ugly frogs.
My Saint Set
As long as eye appeal is a grading factor, computers will never be able to grade coins. Also, when PCGS tried computer grading, they still needed to have a human finalizer evaluate each coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire