@U1chicago said:
I have submitted to both Anacs and NGC over the last few years. Anacs has been fairly consistent and even conservative in that time frame. NGC has been solid as well. I did not notice any loose grading with either service when it came to my submissions (although it was a small sample size). From the coins that I follow at auction, the only times I've seen loose grading is with upper end toned coins. All the TPGs tend to market grade the color and occasionally let things pass that would be more scrutinized on a blast white coin.
When you say toned coins are loosely graded, are you evaluating them using technical grading?
TPGs use market grading which factors market prices into grades, but I've found that many times the coins still sell for far more than their grades would indicate. I wonder if this mean strong toners continue to be undergraded, even with market grading.
Wonder no more. 😉Generally, “strong toners” certainly don’t tend to be under-graded. When they bring seemingly high prices, it’s usually because of their individuality and beauty.
My understanding is that market grading factors price into the grade, and strong toners often exhibit prices that do not appear to be fully factored into the grade. So I'm not sure what portion of pricing is factored into grade and what isn't.
Based on some of the record prices for strong toners, they would need to be graded MS 70 to keep up with the market.
Edit: also the grade can just as often drive the price. A 64 Morgan toner can sell for $2,000. Then it gets market graded to a 67 (to account for the price). As a 67 it then sells for $10,000. Do we now market grade it as a 68+? And if we do and it sells for $100,000, do we again upgrade it to a 69+?
Market grading's goal is to incorporate price into the grade, so I'd say to be truly successful, it needs to do that and the grade needs to reflect the price.
Of course, what is likely happening is that market grading isn't fully implemented for toners.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
This is why holistic grading makes the most sense. Pick a standard, like 25% surfaces, 25% luster, 25% eye appeal, 25% strike (just an example-pick some breakdown and stick to it). Then all coins are graded equally and the market can determine the price based on how much someone likes the coin.
My understanding is that the TPGs all use market grading and the ANA teaches market grading as well.
And it’s flawed since it leads to situations like I mentioned where the only way to account for the market is to keep increasing grades as prices go up (until you reach the 70 roadblock) or decreasing grades as prices go down (until you reach the 1 roadblock).
@Zoins said:
My understanding is that the TPGs all use market grading and the ANA teaches market grading as well.
And it’s flawed since it leads to situations like I mentioned where the only way to account for the market is to keep increasing grades as prices go up (until you reach the 70 roadblock) or decreasing grades as prices go down (until you reach the 1 roadblock).
That's not happening so it there seems to be some built-in protections against that.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I'm not sure why it does, but it does. For example, factoring in prices is why we have grades like "AU63", which is a circulated coin in a MS63 holder. Using technical grading only, that kind of coin would likely be a AU58+.
@Zoins said:
My understanding is that the TPGs all use market grading and the ANA teaches market grading as well.
And it’s flawed since it leads to situations like I mentioned where the only way to account for the market is to keep increasing grades as prices go up (until you reach the 70 roadblock) or decreasing grades as prices go down (until you reach the 1 roadblock).
That's not happening so it there seems to be some built-in protections against that.
It might be starting (unless this was gassed-which I have no reason to believe)?
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
But it is also what is used. So it's important to understand the limitations and how it's applied.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Yes there are issues with using opinions but almost any grading system has some opinion (especially if there is an eye appeal factor). For me, the best grading method would strive to minimize the impact of any one opinion (but I also know that would be difficult and not everyone would want such a system).
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
But it is also what is used. So it's important to understand the limitations and how it's applied.
I’m under the impression that people do understand the limitations and that there’s no formula to understand, for how market grading’s applied.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Of course, that’s a major shortcoming.
I’m unclear whether you’re equating a star with a grade bump, which is not the same thing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
since I have a sense, both personal and garnered from others and the coin market in general, about which TPG is ranked Number One, I don't really concern myself with how they follow from Number Two on down.
here's what I do: I focus my attention on the coin and where it is graded and priced. when I am satisfied with that, if I happen to come into ownership I simply move it into the TPG that I perceive will be the best place for it whenever I want to sell.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Of course, that’s a major shortcoming.
I’m unclear whether you’re equating a star with a grade bump, which is not the same thing.
I think you answered it in the first sentence. My point on the star was, in the case of market grading do to eye appeal, they increase the grade because of the eye appeal INSTEAD OF giving out a star (which I thought was the purpose of the NGC star). Of course PCGSdoesn't have a star system but they do have a + grade. Maybe they need to issue more plus grades?
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Of course, that’s a major shortcoming.
I’m unclear whether you’re equating a star with a grade bump, which is not the same thing.
I think you answered it in the first sentence. My point on the star was, in the case of market grading do to eye appeal, they increase the grade because of the eye appeal INSTEAD OF giving out a star (which I thought was the purpose of the NGC star). Of course PCGSdoesn't have a star system but they do have a + grade. Maybe they need to issue more plus grades?
Do you feel that overall, coins don’t receive enough of a grade bump for eye-appeal? I think far too many already get more than they should.
Either way, why would the grading companies need to issue more plus grades, when they can bump coins by whole grades?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I'm not sure why it does, but it does. For example, factoring in prices is why we have grades like "AU63", which is a circulated coin in a MS63 holder. Using technical grading only, that kind of coin would likely be a AU58+.
I’m guessing one reason this is done is price guides want prices to go up with grades, as in a higher grade should have a higher price. But with technical grading, you may have a price dip from MS60-62, where both AU58 and MS63 are priced higher than MS60-62.
If the price keeps increasing every time the grade increases, how can market grading ever keep up? You reach MS 70 and then what? Should all strong toners be graded 70?
It seems according to market grading, grades should reflect prices.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Of course, that’s a major shortcoming.
I’m unclear whether you’re equating a star with a grade bump, which is not the same thing.
I think you answered it in the first sentence. My point on the star was, in the case of market grading do to eye appeal, they increase the grade because of the eye appeal INSTEAD OF giving out a star (which I thought was the purpose of the NGC star). Of course PCGSdoesn't have a star system but they do have a + grade. Maybe they need to issue more plus grades?
Do you feel that overall, coins don’t receive enough of a grade bump for eye-appeal? I think far too many already get more than they should.
Either way, why would the grading companies need to issue more plus grades, when they can bump coins by whole grades?
No, I agree with you that many are already getting more than they should.
My point was, instead of increasing the grade, they should issue more plusses and stars. My personal belief is that the technical grade is what it is based on wear, marks, etc. At least that was what I was taught when I was a youngin'. The eye appeal aspect shouldn't impact grade but you can place a Star, + or CAC sticker on it based on eye appeal. Maybe I'm being too simplistic with this but that's how I thought it should work.
@291fifth said:
The final say so belongs to the dealers. It is what they consider to be market acceptable that counts. How do the dealers CURRENTLY consider ANACS?
I agree that the final say belongs to the dealers and consumers. The point I was originally making in the thread was that lately I have seen better, more consistent and conservative grading coming out of ANACS than NGC. It's hard to argue with any of the points made by anyone posting so far. They're all true.
@Catbert said:
If eye appeal is 10% of a factor when grading and eye appeal relates to market, then I do not see the TPG ever going to the extremes noted in determining their grade opinion.
I don’t claim to know what percentage of a grade eye-appeal constitutes, but in the case of many mint state and Proof coins, It seems like it’s much larger than 10%.
Mark. This is where the 10% came from (from a quote I posted here last year):
From the recent PCGS Rare Coin Market Report article on Eye Appeal written by Michael Sherman states:
"Eye appeal is one of four factors PCGS looks at when grading a mint state coin. The first two, Surface Preservation and Strike are fairly objective. Bagmarks, hairlines, abrasions, and other surface imperfections are either present, or theyt are not. Strike can be measured against a theoretically "fully struck" example, and areas of weakness can be determined. The third, Luster, is a bit more difficult to measure objectively, but most trained eyes can readily tell a lustrous coin from a dull or impaired one. Which brings us to the fourth factor.
Eye Appeal is defined as the overall "look" of a coin. it is a complex and indefinable mixture of the first three factors discussed above plus toning (or any coloration to the coin's surface). Because surface preservation, strike, and luster already have played some part in the coin's grade, much of the eye appeal therefore deals with a coin's toning. Spectacularly toned coins often elicit a "wow" from the observer, and over the years, we've used a variety of colorful adjectives to describe a coin with a "wow factor."
Eye appeal only accounts for about 10% of a coin's final grade in the normal grading process, but it often plays a critical role in determining what a given coin may realize when sold."
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
If eye appeal is 10% of a factor when grading and eye appeal relates to market, then I do not see the TPG ever going to the extremes noted in determining their grade opinion.
I don’t claim to know what percentage of a grade eye-appeal constitutes, but in the case of many mint state and Proof coins, It seems like it’s much larger than 10%.
Mark. This is where the 10% came from (from a quote I posted here last year):
From the recent PCGS Rare Coin Market Report article on Eye Appeal written by Michael Sherman states:
"Eye appeal is one of four factors PCGS looks at when grading a mint state coin. The first two, Surface Preservation and Strike are fairly objective. Bagmarks, hairlines, abrasions, and other surface imperfections are either present, or theyt are not. Strike can be measured against a theoretically "fully struck" example, and areas of weakness can be determined. The third, Luster, is a bit more difficult to measure objectively, but most trained eyes can readily tell a lustrous coin from a dull or impaired one. Which brings us to the fourth factor.
Eye Appeal is defined as the overall "look" of a coin. it is a complex and indefinable mixture of the first three factors discussed above plus toning (or any coloration to the coin's surface). Because surface preservation, strike, and luster already have played some part in the coin's grade, much of the eye appeal therefore deals with a coin's toning. Spectacularly toned coins often elicit a "wow" from the observer, and over the years, we've used a variety of colorful adjectives to describe a coin with a "wow factor."
Eye appeal only accounts for about 10% of a coin's final grade in the normal grading process, but it often plays a critical role in determining what a given coin may realize when sold."
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
As smart as he is and as often as I agree with him, I think Mr. Sherman’s 10% number for eye-appeal is lower than the major grading companies use in the case of many Unc. and proof coins.
I strongly agree with you that eye-appeal designators would be better than grade bumps.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
@291fifth said:
The final say so belongs to the dealers. It is what they consider to be market acceptable that counts. How do the dealers CURRENTLY consider ANACS?
Blue / yellow ANACS is fine for error coins.
Little white slabs are the bomb for error coinage.
@291fifth said:
The final say so belongs to the dealers. It is what they consider to be market acceptable that counts. How do the dealers CURRENTLY consider ANACS?
Blue / yellow ANACS is fine for error coins.
Little white slabs are the bomb for error coinage.
I have an error type set where small white ANACS slabs are required: 1999 broadstruck coin type set in ANACS white slabs
@Zoins said:
My understanding is that the TPGs all use market grading and the ANA teaches market grading as well.
And it’s flawed since it leads to situations like I mentioned where the only way to account for the market is to keep increasing grades as prices go up (until you reach the 70 roadblock) or decreasing grades as prices go down (until you reach the 1 roadblock).
That's not happening so it there seems to be some built-in protections against that.
It might be starting (unless this was gassed-which I have no reason to believe)?
This is a perfect example of why it's a mess at PCGS. NGC knows enough not to grade these Pf 70. It is because there are none that meet their standard for grade 70. Any of you folks been stung when prices were in the thousands for these things ? Anybody ever seen one in a brown box holder that wasn't toned or hazy ?
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
However, I don't think that prevents other TPGs from adding their own eye appeal designation (maybe a diamond or an additional sticker).
They can even break out all four components (surfaces, strike, luster, eye appeal) as individual scores like CGC does for cards or like some TPGs used to do in the photo cert era.
In my opinion, PCGS is #1 and will always be #1 because collectors and dealers who want to sell their coins and get the most money, especially for higher end coins, will put them in PCGS slabs. Same thing for NGC being #2, coins that will get a higher grade at NGC rather than PCGS, but are still good coins, will be put in an NGC slab to make them more saleable at the higher grade that can't be obtained at PCGS. There are even coins where NGC will give a higher grade with the coin getting a CAC bean, that won't get that higher grade at PCGS. ICG, ANACS are good for coins that won't get a high grade at NGC or PCGS or for modern coins where grades aren't as crucial as classic coins or people like Mike Mezack who market coins to people who aren't educated about the hobby like we are. Otherwise why do we have series like Saints where the most desirable coins are: 1. PCGS CAC, 2. NGC CAC, 3. PCGS no CAC, 4. NGC no CAC.
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
However, I don't think that prevents other TPGs from adding their own eye appeal designation (maybe a diamond or an additional sticker).
They can even break out all four components (surfaces, strike, luster, eye appeal) as individual scores like CGC does for cards or like some TPGs used to do in the photo cert era.
I like the grading and subjective standards used by ANACS on the above.
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
Duh. This is what I recommended by saying “star like”.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
Duh. This is what I recommended by saying “star like”.
I was specifically asking about using a "Star", not being "star like".
@U1chicago provided the information I was seeking, in that the Star is trademarked. If it wasn't, it's nice to use something that's already established as something different is likely to not be as effective or raise more questions.
@Electricity said:
I think each TPG service has their own niche, PCGS for their reliable grading/customer service, Anacs for specials and mixed submissions, NGC for oversized cases and star, ICG for hiring Insider2, and the rest of the services for trying 😉
@Catbert said:
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
Duh. This is what I recommended by saying “star like”.
I was specifically asking about using a "Star", not being "star like".
@U1chicago provided the information I was seeking, in that the Star is trademarked. If it wasn't, it's nice to use something that's already established as something different is likely to not be as effective or raise more questions.
And I was specifically responding to Mark.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I had a dealer tell me once years ago about his opinion on photograde. He told me photograde means you don't know how to grade
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I started with Brown and Dunn and Photograde. My have the times changed. Circulated coins weren't spared either.
For what it's worth I agree each of the top 4 TPG's have their niche and I use all 4 as a result.
As an avid counterfeit researcher and author I find the TPG's guarantee as important as any other attribute of their slabs, maybe even more in the current environment.
I like ANACS for low grade common early copper, as they were on the forefront of "net grading" (similar to "EAC grading") for surface/ condition challenged coins and grade pretty accurately in that area, but prefer one of the top ones for rarer die varieties/ die states.
One thing that is important to me is PCGS is the only TPG that guarantees their variety attributions, which can be the difference of a low value example to a much higher one!
I love ICG for their educational/ counterfeit slabs, an area I think the others should consider...
As it should be. I had a Barber Half I tried to get a 58+ on 2 times on the crossover with cross at 58+. It was in aa ANACS 62 holder. IMHO it was a lock and for sure a technical 58. The problem was it had the most wonderful, colorful toning a Barber Half can have. When I sent it in it graded 63. I wanted that coin in my everyman set so bad. When I finally put it out for sale it sold the 1st 1/2 of the day for 64-65 money. Didn't matter what the holder said. I should add a 58 should be worth more than 60-62 coins price guide wise.
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I'm not sure why it does, but it does. For example, factoring in prices is why we have grades like "AU63", which is a circulated coin in a MS63 holder. Using technical grading only, that kind of coin would likely be a AU58+.
I’m guessing one reason this is done is price guides want prices to go up with grades, as in a higher grade should have a higher price. But with technical grading, you may have a price dip from MS60-62, where both AU58 and MS63 are priced higher than MS60-62.
@chesterb said:
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I had a dealer tell me once years ago about his opinion on photograde. He told me photograde means you don't know how to grade
Of course. It's to help aid in grading if you're unfamiliar with a coin or series. I still reference them from time to time, not often, but I do to make sure there are no idiosyncrasies with certain coins.
Comments
And it’s flawed since it leads to situations like I mentioned where the only way to account for the market is to keep increasing grades as prices go up (until you reach the 70 roadblock) or decreasing grades as prices go down (until you reach the 1 roadblock).
That's not happening so it there seems to be some built-in protections against that.
So that’s why I’m asking, what is the end scenario? 70 grades for the most expensive? If you have a circulated rarity and an UNC strong toner that both sell for $1 million. Are they both the same grade according to market grading?
That's a good scenario to ponder. Who are the thought leaders on market grading today? Are they at the ANA, the TPGs?
Why does market have to factor into a grade? Why can't the grade be the grade based on wear like the good ol' days and let the coin's eye appeal affect the price? I grew up on Brown and Dunn and Photograde and wear was the primary factor of the grade.
I'm not sure why it does, but it does. For example, factoring in prices is why we have grades like "AU63", which is a circulated coin in a MS63 holder. Using technical grading only, that kind of coin would likely be a AU58+.
Is market grading the primary factor in grade inflation?
It might be starting (unless this was gassed-which I have no reason to believe)?
No, it was an excellent point made by U1chicago and an absurd scenario to ponder. Market grading has obvious and severe limitations, shortcomings and flaws. And that’s not going to change.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But it is also what is used. So it's important to understand the limitations and how it's applied.
Isn't one of the shortcomings that it is based on opinion? Kind of like the TPG assigning a star without actually having the star...just a bump in grade?
Yes there are issues with using opinions but almost any grading system has some opinion (especially if there is an eye appeal factor). For me, the best grading method would strive to minimize the impact of any one opinion (but I also know that would be difficult and not everyone would want such a system).
I’m under the impression that people do understand the limitations and that there’s no formula to understand, for how market grading’s applied.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Of course, that’s a major shortcoming.
I’m unclear whether you’re equating a star with a grade bump, which is not the same thing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
since I have a sense, both personal and garnered from others and the coin market in general, about which TPG is ranked Number One, I don't really concern myself with how they follow from Number Two on down.
here's what I do: I focus my attention on the coin and where it is graded and priced. when I am satisfied with that, if I happen to come into ownership I simply move it into the TPG that I perceive will be the best place for it whenever I want to sell.
it has worked well so far.
I think you answered it in the first sentence. My point on the star was, in the case of market grading do to eye appeal, they increase the grade because of the eye appeal INSTEAD OF giving out a star (which I thought was the purpose of the NGC star). Of course PCGSdoesn't have a star system but they do have a + grade. Maybe they need to issue more plus grades?
The final say so belongs to the dealers. It is what they consider to be market acceptable that counts. How do the dealers CURRENTLY consider ANACS?
Do you feel that overall, coins don’t receive enough of a grade bump for eye-appeal? I think far too many already get more than they should.
Either way, why would the grading companies need to issue more plus grades, when they can bump coins by whole grades?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m guessing one reason this is done is price guides want prices to go up with grades, as in a higher grade should have a higher price. But with technical grading, you may have a price dip from MS60-62, where both AU58 and MS63 are priced higher than MS60-62.
No, I agree with you that many are already getting more than they should.
My point was, instead of increasing the grade, they should issue more plusses and stars. My personal belief is that the technical grade is what it is based on wear, marks, etc. At least that was what I was taught when I was a youngin'. The eye appeal aspect shouldn't impact grade but you can place a Star, + or CAC sticker on it based on eye appeal. Maybe I'm being too simplistic with this but that's how I thought it should work.
I agree that the final say belongs to the dealers and consumers. The point I was originally making in the thread was that lately I have seen better, more consistent and conservative grading coming out of ANACS than NGC. It's hard to argue with any of the points made by anyone posting so far. They're all true.
Mark. This is where the 10% came from (from a quote I posted here last year):
From the recent PCGS Rare Coin Market Report article on Eye Appeal written by Michael Sherman states:
"Eye appeal is one of four factors PCGS looks at when grading a mint state coin. The first two, Surface Preservation and Strike are fairly objective. Bagmarks, hairlines, abrasions, and other surface imperfections are either present, or theyt are not. Strike can be measured against a theoretically "fully struck" example, and areas of weakness can be determined. The third, Luster, is a bit more difficult to measure objectively, but most trained eyes can readily tell a lustrous coin from a dull or impaired one. Which brings us to the fourth factor.
Eye Appeal is defined as the overall "look" of a coin. it is a complex and indefinable mixture of the first three factors discussed above plus toning (or any coloration to the coin's surface). Because surface preservation, strike, and luster already have played some part in the coin's grade, much of the eye appeal therefore deals with a coin's toning. Spectacularly toned coins often elicit a "wow" from the observer, and over the years, we've used a variety of colorful adjectives to describe a coin with a "wow factor."
Eye appeal only accounts for about 10% of a coin's final grade in the normal grading process, but it often plays a critical role in determining what a given coin may realize when sold."
The article then goes on to demonstrate the disparity in auction results between coins with attractive toning vs those without. My view is that rather than inflate a grade to reflect the market value of the coin that has "extra" eye appeal, why not use a star like designation to separate special "wow" coins while retaining the integrity of the grading level comprising the other 90% of factors.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
As smart as he is and as often as I agree with him, I think Mr. Sherman’s 10% number for eye-appeal is lower than the major grading companies use in the case of many Unc. and proof coins.
I strongly agree with you that eye-appeal designators would be better than grade bumps.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The Star is what NGC does. Is there anything preventing other TPGs from doing the same?
Blue / yellow ANACS is fine for error coins.
Little white slabs are the bomb for error coinage.
I have an error type set where small white ANACS slabs are required: 1999 broadstruck coin type set in ANACS white slabs
This is a perfect example of why it's a mess at PCGS. NGC knows enough not to grade these Pf 70. It is because there are none that meet their standard for grade 70. Any of you folks been stung when prices were in the thousands for these things ? Anybody ever seen one in a brown box holder that wasn't toned or hazy ?
The star is trademarked. See article below:
"A registered trademark of NGC"
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/3798/Star-designation/
However, I don't think that prevents other TPGs from adding their own eye appeal designation (maybe a diamond or an additional sticker).
They can even break out all four components (surfaces, strike, luster, eye appeal) as individual scores like CGC does for cards or like some TPGs used to do in the photo cert era.
In my opinion, PCGS is #1 and will always be #1 because collectors and dealers who want to sell their coins and get the most money, especially for higher end coins, will put them in PCGS slabs. Same thing for NGC being #2, coins that will get a higher grade at NGC rather than PCGS, but are still good coins, will be put in an NGC slab to make them more saleable at the higher grade that can't be obtained at PCGS. There are even coins where NGC will give a higher grade with the coin getting a CAC bean, that won't get that higher grade at PCGS. ICG, ANACS are good for coins that won't get a high grade at NGC or PCGS or for modern coins where grades aren't as crucial as classic coins or people like Mike Mezack who market coins to people who aren't educated about the hobby like we are. Otherwise why do we have series like Saints where the most desirable coins are: 1. PCGS CAC, 2. NGC CAC, 3. PCGS no CAC, 4. NGC no CAC.
I like the grading and subjective standards used by ANACS on the above.
Duh. This is what I recommended by saying “star like”.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I was specifically asking about using a "Star", not being "star like".
@U1chicago provided the information I was seeking, in that the Star is trademarked. If it wasn't, it's nice to use something that's already established as something different is likely to not be as effective or raise more questions.
That's funny.
This thread never would have lasted this long on a weekday
Latin American Collection
And I was specifically responding to Mark.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I had a dealer tell me once years ago about his opinion on photograde. He told me photograde means you don't know how to grade
yes
I started with Brown and Dunn and Photograde. My have the times changed. Circulated coins weren't spared either.
For what it's worth I agree each of the top 4 TPG's have their niche and I use all 4 as a result.
As an avid counterfeit researcher and author I find the TPG's guarantee as important as any other attribute of their slabs, maybe even more in the current environment.
I like ANACS for low grade common early copper, as they were on the forefront of "net grading" (similar to "EAC grading") for surface/ condition challenged coins and grade pretty accurately in that area, but prefer one of the top ones for rarer die varieties/ die states.
One thing that is important to me is PCGS is the only TPG that guarantees their variety attributions, which can be the difference of a low value example to a much higher one!
I love ICG for their educational/ counterfeit slabs, an area I think the others should consider...
As it should be. I had a Barber Half I tried to get a 58+ on 2 times on the crossover with cross at 58+. It was in aa ANACS 62 holder. IMHO it was a lock and for sure a technical 58. The problem was it had the most wonderful, colorful toning a Barber Half can have. When I sent it in it graded 63.
I wanted that coin in my everyman set so bad. When I finally put it out for sale it sold the 1st 1/2 of the day for 64-65 money. Didn't matter what the holder said. I should add a 58 should be worth more than 60-62 coins price guide wise.
Of course. It's to help aid in grading if you're unfamiliar with a coin or series. I still reference them from time to time, not often, but I do to make sure there are no idiosyncrasies with certain coins.