No Photo What would you deserve from a TPGS as a buyer?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have an attractive coin with Ok toning (golden brown) and lots of mint luster poking through. The coin is in an XF-45 slab (not a top 4 TPGS). HOWEVER, there is only a 55+ amount of friction on the obv and AU-58+ amount of friction on the reverse.. The submitter is requesting an AU-50 or higher grade. Easy right?
Actually not because it appears the coin is NET GRADED! There are scratches and gouges on both sides. They are hidden on the obverse but naked eye visible on the reverse.
The coin looks like it is MS in the slab. How would you like a TPGS to value (grade) this coin? Is it OK to net grade it and ignore the damage. Is it better to problem grad the coin at its true grade? Remember, this is NOT ABOUT YOU or whether you would be interested in the coin personally. You are being asked to value (grade) it for the person who eventually will buy it.
VF $325
EF-40 $500
AU-50 $750
MS-60 $1200
Comments
if I ran a TPG I would like to see coins like this graded details with a code IE;
AU Details OS,RD
the code key would be published on the website and printed on a card with every details coin
OS - Obverse Scratch
RD - reverse damage
I have not worked out the code or all the permutations etc. It is just something I always thought should be done to help education and understanding.
My general thought in such instances is that "If, due to a problem or problems, a coin has to be down-graded to the extent that the applicable net grade looks silly or stupid, the coin should receive a details-grade, instead." So, for example, if a coin looks Unc., but you're considering net grading it down to XF or lower to account for problems, give it a details-grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To add more fuel to the fire, this sounds like the situation where a common date Morgan would be details graded but a Gobrecht dollar would be silently net graded. So it may depend on the specific coin being graded.
Generally, I think if the problems are only a bit worse than what the coin would grade if the problems were consistent with the grade I would net grade a notch. Otherwise I think it should be a details grade.
I tend to agree with @MFeld but also see the problem that @Zoins refers to. Rarer coins seem to get net graded more often whereas a more common coin will more often be details graded.
I tend to favor telling it like it is and if there is a problem let the buyer know that on the slab, so in the OP's scenario I would details grade the coin.
Life member of ANA
I always thought that MS60 was one step from killing an uncirculated coin. For example, I recall seeing some coins that were seriously overdipped, to the point that they had absolutely no luster left (dull, light gray surfaces)--they were given the MS60 grade. Where does this grade fit in, in your view?
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I usually assume 2 grades down for significant damage. So from AU55 to VF20-30 could be reasonable. I've also seen AU55 detail coins down graded to Fine-12 value. You basically ask yourself, would I rather have this problem free VF30 coin or this AU55 details with damage coin? Keep dropping the grade until you feel comfortable. For a coin that is rarely seen above XF then the damaged AU coin might be appeal to some collectors looking for luster and details (ie think of an 1860-s or 1859-s quarter that never have luster and sharp details).
I would AU53 details the coin and let the players decide what they're willing to pay; in this case likely $425ish.
The 53 may alert arm length viewers (no current social comment intended) to its issues.
Mine too....
If, in your scenario, I thought that the coin was uncirculated, I’d label it Uncirculated Details, Cleaned.
I see no good reason to award it a lower net grade, such as AU or XF. And based on your description, while I can’t be certain, I don’t think I’d want to grade it MS60, either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Sonorandesertrat said: "I always thought that MS60 was one step from killing an uncirculated coin. For example, I recall seeing some coins that were seriously overdipped, to the point that they had absolutely no luster left (dull, light gray surfaces)--they were given the MS60 grade."
Anyone who learns to grade the way it was taught in the 1970's could answer this. Back then, MS indicated no trace of wear. An MS-60 could be a coin with no wear but a dull surface all the way up to a baggy blazing headlight! The original technical system went even further. Drill a hole in a Mint State coin and it became - Mint State with a hole! The wear grade of a coin was completely separated from anything else. MS-XX, flat strike. Then as soon as the coin lost original surface from friction (NOT COMPRESSION) it became AU.
Things got jumbled when coin dealers became involved. They knew how to price a coin but they did not like precise grading at all for multiple good reasons associated with the coin business. I remember calling the owner of an auction company to tell him that we were grading the Missouri 2x4 sold in auction as an MS-65 as Choice AU! Today, you don't know if the MS coin you purchase sight unseen is going to be a true MS or AU.
BTW, MS-60 is a grade that practically does not exist any more. It would be a coin graded Uncirculated, Excessive Marks (MS-60) back in the 70's.
Sight unseen buying is another reason Net Grading is harmful.
IMO, it's too bad the dealers did not start a coin pricing service back in '86. Then there would be no need for gradeflation. A coin graded back then as XF and priced at $$,$$$$ would now be sold as XF for $$$,$$$$ and no one would wink at the "new" grade assigned to the coin to justify its increased value.
"Today, you don't know if the MS coin you purchase sight unseen is going to be a true MS or AU."
True dat. And scary, even in the time of coronavirus.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Grade-flation isn't just the result of pricing coins which have increased in value. If that were the case, most classic silver and gold commemoratives would grade considerably lower today than they did a decade, or two or three ago.😉
Grade-flation occurs largely, because the deck is stacked for resubmissions to have a far greater likelihood of increasing, rather than decreasing, in grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "Grade-flation isn't just the result of pricing coins which have increased in value. If that were the case, most classic silver and gold commemoratives would grade considerably lower today than they did a decade, or two or three ago.😉
Grade-flation occurs largely, because the deck is stacked for resubmissions to have a far greater likelihood of increasing, rather than decreasing, in grade."
See if I under stand your post.
"Grade-flation isn't just the result of pricing coins which have increased in value.
Would you agree this is the most obvious reason? Example: 1804 Dollar.
"...most classic silver and gold commemoratives would grade considerably lower today than they did a decade, or two or three ago."
Why would they grade lower? Standards have been getting loose over this time period. Sliders are now commonly graded MS. Changing grades lift all the boats er, coins.
"Grade-flation occurs largely, because the deck is stacked for resubmissions to have a far greater likelihood of increasing, rather than decreasing, in grade."
Aren't coins resubmitted to take advantage of changing standards? Why would a major TPGS raise the grade of a coin if it did not deserve it? The only exception might be to get a major rarity out of a competitor's slab.
I am of the opinion that no coin should be net graded, so it should be called what it is. Therefore if the coin has AU surfaces but scratched, cleaned, or what ever else the coin should be details graded. It does not matter to me how common or rare the coin is. My main reason behind my opinion is that with the common/average collector net grading creates confusion of what a problem free coin should look like.
Net grading does not confuse EACers---said with a wink and nod---there is a world of difference between a choice coin in grade X and a scudzy (or even average) coin in the next higher grade increment. This isn't that hard to learn.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Unfortunately, a very large number of knowledgeable numismatists either don't understand this or disagree with it. They swear by net grading. AND TRY/ASK as many times as I do/have in the past, NO ONE CAN TELL ME THE NAME OF THE "GENIUS" who devised such a stupid way to grade a coin!!!!!
AFAIK, the formulators of Brown and Dunn grading, Original Photo Grading, and "true" Technical Grading are all known. The folks who devised the ANA Grading Standards is possibly a much larger group but basically just a few major editors. Who devised Net Grading? New Discussion.
Is there really an 'intelligent' way to grade a coin? Every method has serious flaws, and is at times subject to manipulation. Don't like grades? Then don't use them, as has been the practice of some dealers (who price their coins, but refuse to assign grades to them). Grades are just proxies for prices anyway. In a situation where a coin is well-known (e.g., an 1804 dollar), does its grade matter that much? Buyers who know what they are doing will recognize the coin for what it is. For more common coins (unless one is playing a registry game), as long as a collector likes a coin and can live with the seller's price, what does the grade mean? Not much, in my opinion.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Details. I've been told that regular (as opposed to ultra-rare) coins are now killed for problems, garnering a small fraction of the value of no-problems coins, so if the problems aren't disclosed you are intentionally burying people.
1) I think there’s more grade-flation due to the nature of the re-grade process (under which coins can increase, but not decrease in grade) than due to the pricing of coins through grading. However, I acknowledge that the two are interrelated.
2) If, as you and some others say, grading is a way of pricing coins, commemoratives should tend to grade lower than they did when they were valued at multiples of what they are these days. And that’s even considering that grading might be looser than it was many years ago.
3) Coins aren't resubmitted just to take advantage of changing standards. Many are resubmitted to take advantage of “standards” which aren't necessarily highly objective or as evenly/consistently applied as would be preferable. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many resubmissions within such a short time after the coins were previously graded. Instead, far more submitters would wait months or years to resubmit.
I think talk of changing standards is overblown. And that more accurately, grade-flation tends to result from standards, which in many cases, can’t be clearly enough defined to avoid subjectivity and inconsistency.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In reference to the OP (which has evolved into an interesting and informative dialogue somewhat away from the original purpose), based on the description, I would give it a VF.
That being said...the entire discussion is complete justification for what I have been complaining about for two decades here - No standards exist!!! Real standards have clear definitions and allow for accurate determinations of condition. We have trained opinions - at best. With the technology today, and the advanced science of AI, this could - and should - be developed and implemented in coin grading. We talk about 'changing standards', a misnomer, since 'standards' do not change. Yes, coins are graded differently now than 20, 30, 40 years ago....Why? No standards. Grade should not be related to rarity or eye appeal...They have nothing to do with how the coin surface has degraded since minting. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are resources that can be consulted to understand what standards are....I worked with such dictum's for many years. It is time for the hobby to mature and establish such standards. Cheers, RickO
I don't care what you net grade it or price it.
I'd be sorry that I bought it, perhaps by the time I got it home
BHNC #203
I agree with most of what @ricko said. The one statement I take issue with is "They have nothing to do with how the coin surface has degraded since minting" I think grading has everything to do with how the coin surface has degraded since minting when you consider that "wear" is surface degradation. Now that is only important in grading circulated coins. Grading Uncirculated/Mint State coins is a whole different methodology as wear is not a factor.
Two circulated coins that are worn the exact same amount should have the exact same grade. Now if one of those coins has a big scratch most collectors are not going to want to pay the same amount as the one without the scratch. So in steps the TPGs and they grade the one with the scratch one grade lower because it is worth less money. With the TPGs, Grade = Value and they are trying to place every coin on the value spectrum by assigning it a grade.
Flame retardant suit on!
Life member of ANA
I really think "scudzy" on a label could kill the coin pretty much forever.
@ColoradoCoinGuy....When I said "They have nothing to do with how the coin surface has degraded since minting", I was referring specifically to rarity and eye appeal - as stated. Eye appeal is judgmental and specific to an individuals personal taste... and rarity has zero effect on condition. Cheers, RickO
@ricko sorry misunderstood what you were trying to say. I have read a lot of what you have posted over the years and it didn't sound like something you would say. So my bad.
Life member of ANA
Every method has flaws? Can you elaborate them for us? Wait. Net grading is a "method" and market grading is another, right?
@MFeld, Thanks from all of us for the detailed reply!
@MFeld said:
1) I think there’s more grade-flation due to the nature of the re-grade process (under which coins can increase, but not decrease in grade) than due to the pricing of coins through grading. However, I acknowledge that the two are interrelated.
2) If, as you and some others say, grading is a way of pricing coins, commemoratives should tend to grade lower than they did when they were valued at multiples of what they are these days. And that’s even considering that grading might be looser than it was many years ago.
In my experience, virtually all coins that were graded decades ago have increased in grade. At the same time, their actual value may have not. AFAIK, TPG varies mostly due to the strength of the coin market yet at the time a coin is graded, it is usually "right on." The Proof Franklin in a 64 slab graded in 1987 (now a PR-67 at the minimum is probably as worthless now as it was decades ago when I added to my grading set. Only now the grade must be covered so students cannot see it!
3) Coins aren't resubmitted just to take advantage of changing standards. Many are resubmitted to take advantage of “standards” which aren't necessarily highly objective or as evenly/consistently applied as would be preferable. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many resubmissions within such a short time after the coins were previously graded. Instead, far more submitters would wait months or years to resubmit.
I think talk of changing standards is overblown. And that more accurately, grade-flation tends to result from standards, which in many cases, can’t be clearly enough defined to avoid subjectivity and inconsistency.
IMO, at one time, grading was very strict. So strict that coin dealers decided to grade coins for themselves rather than rely on folks who had no "finger-on-the-scale" and had no clue how the REAL coin market worked. They just knew how to grade a coin based on its condition of preservation rather than all the "important commercial considerations."
I can tell you everything there is to see on a coin and teach others to do the same yet I'll never be as proficient a grader on the scale of hundreds of guys in the pits. I cannot teach anyone to be like them either.
There were standards. The "true" technical grading system was based on the written standards in Sheldon. MS = "no trace of wear." You cannot get any more clearer than that!
The main problem was/IS that the majority of folks did not follow any of the standards even when the ANA tried to publish some.
@ColoradoCoinGuy ....No problem... I have misread or missed things in posts too....It happens...
Cheers, RickO
"Every method has flaws? Can you elaborate them for us? Wait. Net grading is a "method" and market grading is another, right?"
Sheldon's method never really worked when applied to early coppers in general, much less to other types of coins.
Net grading is beauty in the eye of the beholder. What might bug the he11 out of me might not bother you so much. One collector might prize surface quality over marks, etc. (most early copper collectors do, in my experience). Another collector, looking at an MS coin, might be OK with some marks, but place a premium on luster, etc. EACers also know that putting three experienced graders in a room, and passing the same coin around for opinions, could easily result in three different net grades. Lots of subjectivity here. And what happens to the poor copper that is well struck, technically mint state, nearly mark-free, but has no trace of mint red? No gem grade for it. ON THE OTHER HAND...this type of grading does help when dealing with coins that were struck in primitive circumstances or using low-quality planchets (think of ones that arrived at the mint locale already pitted/corroded). It also helps when dealing with coins that were worked on at one point or two or three (think about spot removal, burnishing, other kinds of tooling, etc.).
There are coins that market grading does not seem to handle well. For many collectors, a details grade might as well as be a kiss of death, so a net grade offers some hope. Market-graded MS coins seem inconsistently handled as well--I have seen coins with satiny surfaces that certainly looked like they were silently net graded. Ditto for some coins with minor planchet flaws (ones not important enough to be deemed error coins), or coins with somewhat flat strikes. Add 'eye appeal'--back to beauty in the eye of the beholder again, except that points can be given too. I have seen wildly toned coins that seemed to get that benefit in spades. And how does one market-grade a wildly toned coin (say a generic MS65 Morgan) when the basal value, if it were white, would be 10% (sometimes 1%) of the value of the toned coin??? Does the grade on an insert mean anything in such a case? [NO!] What about liner coins and company liability? This is like putting one's thumb on a scale--not really objective grading. How about resubmits when there is no possibility that the grade can decrease? And exactly when does a technically AU coin become 62 or 63 instead of 55 or 58?? A coin graded, based in large part on its perceived market value when graded...what happens decades down the road? Why should a rare coin (or any with a 17XX date) tend to be given more lenient treatment than a common one in the same series? What's with coins that have FS, FH, or FT notes on the inserts, but seem blah elsewhere (think of a Standing Liberty quarter with an FH designation for a trace of an earhole, but incompletely struck shield, etc.)? There does not seem to be any consistently applied logic, and certainly plenty of circular reasoning is evident. I agree with Mark Feld's comment about grades of classic commemoratives. Much of what has happened in the work of market grading seems (during my 50+ years of collecting) to be driven by the desire to squeeze money out of buyers (collectors and investors) in particular, and not by any interest in refining grading in the interests of objectivity and transparency.
Remember the old Wendy's commercial, featuring the heavy Russian women parading beach balls in a swimwear fashion show? This is the evolution of modern grading. There is currently no method without serious flaws. Grading is a game that provides endless revenue and ample opportunities for controversy, as well as the usual p___s waving. SO: caveat emptor.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I strongly prefer net grading to detailing a coin. Detailing a coin kills it as far as Registry points and resaleability also. A case in point.....I have a Barber Dime that has the detail of a 65 or better, but has been dipped and labeled cleaned UNC details. It is not over dipped or it would have a mushy loss of detail look. In the Registry all detail coins are given 3 points. So an UNC coin gets the points of an AG coin in the Registry. This REALLY PI$$E$ me of. This coin should be in a 55 to 58 holder at least.
In the big picture, what % do you believe the points in a Registry Set or even the Registry Set itself makes up. You don't want to know my answer.
Nice explanation, I'll read it closely later. For now..."So there are situations that market grading does not seem to handle well. For many collectors, a details grade might as well as be a kiss of death, so a net grade offers some hope.
That seems like passing your streetwalking daughter off as a virgin to a "hopeful John."
Yup. That's why there aren't many angels among coin sellers. And why I continue to be amazed by what collectors buy, and frequently by what they say (i.e., think) they're buying.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
The least it should get is 50 points.
The point I was trying to make is the fact that very many of us believe Registry Sets are a nice "gimmick" similar to the points on chat boards. As such, they don't excite CRH and a large number of collectors.
Since you are interested in these sets, you might send a suggestion to the folks running the set or assemble a number of like-minded set builders to try and modify the way sets are evaluated. Good Luck.