@Catbert said:
"They stood on the shoulders of giants" - so did Microsoft.
But this is a silly argument and I'm out.
That's OK as long as you learned something. That along with our interactions with other members is the best part of CU. I know because that is exactly what I missed during the years I was banned. As a coin snob, I find the number of "quality" numismatists posting here to be very high.
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
@logger7 said:
No one gets fooled by a coin no matter what holder it is in; they assess and judge the coin and the holder then make a decision on the right price….
Maybe I’m not understanding what you wrote but countless people - even very sharp collectors and dealers - get fooled by coins.
I will readily admit I have been fooled many a times, by the number on the slab, by the coin itself. And, I learned from it each time.
One problem that can be difficult to overcome is time. With enough time, one can properly evaluate a coin. With enough time, one can learn the skills to do said proper evaluation. And with said skill, the time required becomes less to properly evaluate. If you don't give yourself enough time to evaluate, you will make mistakes or decisions you aren't the happiest with. My worst regrets came from making snap decisions on coins and not taking the time to evaluate, whether its my own observation, or comparing it to known samples (ie coinfacts) if it's a series I'm less familiar with.
The only way to protect ourselves is to learn to grade ourselves as you have encouraged hundreds of times on this forum, including myself. It's not a skill that comes overnight, and it takes time and effort.
@hfjacinto said:
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
Dissing CAC or PCGS are against forum rules, but hardly a mortal sin. And CAC criticism is constant on this forum despite that.
We are well aware of your dislike of many forumites. Is there a need to constantly state it? Does that make you "mean" or maybe "pretentious"?
@hfjacinto said:
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
Dissing CAC or PCGS are against forum rules, but hardly a mortal sin. And CAC criticism is constant on this forum despite that.
We are well aware of your dislike of many forumites. Is there a need to constantly state it? Does that make you "mean" or maybe "pretentious"?
Actually I like a lot of forum members, but you are correct there a few I don’t like.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
@hfjacinto said:
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
Dissing CAC or PCGS are against forum rules, but hardly a mortal sin. And CAC criticism is constant on this forum despite that.
We are well aware of your dislike of many forumites. Is there a need to constantly state it? Does that make you "mean" or maybe "pretentious"?
Actually I like a lot of forum members, but you are correct there a few I don’t like.
I'm sure we could all say the same thing. It's all good.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
If you agree that humans decide that distinction, then it’s an oxymoron to state that the graders at CAC/CACG are solely correctly identifying true MS and AU coins. What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
If you agree that humans decide that distinction, then it’s an oxymoron to state that the graders at CAC/CACG are solely correctly identifying true MS and AU coins. What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
I am saying MOST of the time not every time. I think these graders are among the best out there that were hired by JA. Not saying there aren’t many other expert graders that can make good calls, but there is a reason JA hired them.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
If you agree that humans decide that distinction, then it’s an oxymoron to state that the graders at CAC/CACG are solely correctly identifying true MS and AU coins. What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
I am saying MOST of the time not every time. I think these graders are among the best out there that were hired by JA. Not saying there aren’t many other expert graders that can make good calls, but there is a reason JA hired them.
That’s a big assumption to make. Are you familiar with the main graders at the other grading services? There are many factors that may have prevented other, potentially more skilled graders from taking that job - such as location and current employment. The supply of graders available for a project like that is very limited, so picking out the “best” would be very difficult.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
If you agree that humans decide that distinction, then it’s an oxymoron to state that the graders at CAC/CACG are solely correctly identifying true MS and AU coins. What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
I am saying MOST of the time not every time. I think these graders are among the best out there that were hired by JA. Not saying there aren’t many other expert graders that can make good calls, but there is a reason JA hired them.
That’s a big assumption to make. Are you familiar with the main graders at the other grading services? There are many factors that may have prevented other, potentially more skilled graders from taking that job - such as location and current employment. The supply of graders available for a project like that is very limited, so picking out the “best” would be very difficult.
Okay agree with that point you made, but I think the best graders will make the correct call most of the time.
There’a also the issue that those hiring choices rely on JA’s opinion of who the “best” is - is he really familiar with who the “best” graders are at the other TPGs anymore? He hasn’t been inside those grading rooms for a while. And, he might have picked graders who were more willing to work using his grading line, which isn’t necessarily the “best” or most “common sense” line - it’s just his line. The benefit that CAC provides (or provided) is the consistency of opinion when using a skilled one-man team - which is definitely useful, but it doesn’t mean that the one-man team is the best team or the be-all-end-all opinion.
I don't have the experience that many of you do. I'm at best an intermediate compared to many of you who are veteran experts. I humbly admit that.
One thing I am good at recognizing is markets (financial professional). And as I understand it market grading and gradeflation are caused by and most prevalent during strong pricing periods and/or bubbles.
JA himself even said as much in an interview with CoinWeek when CACG was announced in late-2022:
He admits that grading changed (some even said it on the stuff they sold at high prices !!) because if you want to be a player and the rules have changed, you either change or you lose the business...or go OUT of business !!
In JA's own words:
"...I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher.
I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again."
I personally think that CAC DID provide a big benefit as a check on the graders. I'm NOT as sure that CACG as a new TPG will provide the same check. Maybe they will -- but JA himself does NOT blame those who adapted during previous market-grading shifts. In fact, in the CW piece he is downright sympathetic to their plight; you might have thought he was dismissive or critical but that was NOT the case. Maybe he's the outlier and will resist; he already has his CAC legacy plus his previous TPG history to backstop him. And he is notoriously tough grader on gold coins, including Saints. So maybe this is the dam that holds back the gradeflation and market grading water.
It will certainly depend on many variables: how CACG scales their business, which coins they target, bigtime collections they may or may not get, whether they gain market share from other TPGs, how "tough" they are on popular coin sets like MSDs and DEs; their approach to sliders and other controversial modern debates, etc. Many of these debates are above my pay grade as someone without all of your experiences doing this on a much higher and larger scale than me for a much longer period of time. And the bigtime collectors who sometimes post here will also have a big say in how this all turns out.
I have seen this play before in my field with the big debates in the past -- and again today !! -- with value and growth stock investing debates. It takes nerves of steel to stick to one's guns and lose billions in assets and millions in fees not knowing if it's the 2nd inning or 9th inning of a move to one style or the other. If you own the business, you just lose $$$ and your reputation. If you work for somebody, you might be calling the unemployment office as you lose your job by sticking to your guns and past standards.
This is what I know for a fact from reading the opinion of others.
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
@Cougar1978 said:
Certainly more strong buyers, investors needed.
That's what I think too and have stated it....but then I get pushback that our small little niche would be totally disrupted (destroyed ?) if you had 1 or 2 more Bob Simpson-like tech gazillionaires spending a few million dollars every month on coins, prices be damned.
If we had a slow but steady increase in dealers, investors, and collectors....then I think that could be more easily absorbed over time into the market. Certainly, niche sectors like U.S. Small Denomination coins that have little or no PM content have faced larger demographic headwinds than MSDs or DEs or Eagles. Whether the decade-plus bear market in those coins ended in 2020 or not (nice move in the PCGS 3000 Index the last 4 years)... remains to be seen.
I've been surprised that more published data -- anectdotal or numerical -- is not available or visible from trade groups, associations, etc. But the PCGS 3000 Index has been on a tear since 2020's bottom and could be looking to retake the pre-GFC post-1989 Bubble highs which could be significant.
Even threads here talking about how individual B&M coin dealers traffic trends are now compared to year past -- boom times and bust times -- would be useful for a State Of The Hobby analysis.
Thanks for a fast response. I don't have time to read this thread and reply yet but this statement **derailed **any desire to read further until later. It is all I need to read to form an opinion about anything else you wrote UNTIL I READ IT tonight:
_"The largely [???] incorrect part is the insinuation [???] that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not_, [Any fool can come up with a new grading system. Any fool can rewrite what constitutes a specific grade. Any greedy wolf can scam the public into not believing what is obvious to their own eyes. The FACT IS THAT ANY INTELLEGENT NUMISMATIST knows the standards of yesterday (real standards at that time) have been shattered and discarded to come up with different, loose standards (the real standards at this moment). That is NOT an insinuation!] or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. [Unfortunately, the fact that all TPGS change grades for the same coin down but mostly up PROVES that their is NO ACCURACY to begin with. The more strict a coin is graded the more precise that grade will be any time the coin is seen in the future BECAUSE the "wiggle room" is lessened.]. _Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. _ While I understand that you must be a very important professional, since I know for a fact that you were not around or involved with the strict "Ivory Tower" (old standards called "technical") grading being done with magnification by folks who did not care or know about the value, ownership, etc. of the tiny round metal bits they graded... It is my personal opinion that you do not have the knowledge to talk about the grading being done for internal records at the ANA's Authentication Service in DC or the First TPGS - INSAB.
Until I return to this discussion if I am not banned again for speaking my mind, I'll leave you and others with this. Read the description of grades in Penny Whimsey. We don't grade that way today because those "STANDARDS" are too strict. That does not make them wrong. They were the standards at one time yet **standards are not standards if they are variable. **
PS I'm not trying to bring back a precise strict grading system, we have moved way too far from calling a pig a pig. I just enjoy posting my thoughts about the "old days" with the "big guys" that post here.
@Cougar1978 said:
She is already on instagram interested using that as a rare coin biz platform. I do have some CACG coins (like > >them) but may have overpaid early in the game lol.
New introductions always have demand exceeding supply: new auto models, graded sports cards a few years ago, NFTs, etc.
As the supply of CACG holders increases, the "newness" premium will dissipate.
@Rexford posted: "...but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU.
First let me say that the word "technical" was applied to the very strict grading done ONLY for internal records at the ANA Certification Service to ID coins while it was in DC and at the first TPGS (INSAB) BY FOLKS WHO NEVER USED IT, DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT, and CHANGED IT INTO THE WAY THEY GRADED when they moved the service to CO to became the second authentication service to start grading coins for the public. The grading system I developed was not "technical anything." It was very strict at a time when a Mint State coin was defined as one with NO TRACE OF (friction) WEAR.
Therefore, IMHO anyone who thinks that a large number of coins graded MS are truly MS and not AU may need to examine them a little closer. My company and every company and dealership grades/purchases/sells coins that are not truly MS as Mint State. That's the way it is because everyone is happy to live with those loose standards. The fact is that some coins that were even called XF in the old days are now called MS! IMO, to deny this FACT wipes out an entire chapter of the evolution of coin grading in the U.S. We may not agree with history, but tearing down a statue from the past such as "a Mint State coin shows no trace of wear" puts us into a certain group I don't wish to belong to.
@Married2Coins said:
Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer > to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the > grading systemall these years.
I think the stink is more because the rules of the game were changed midway through the game....instead of BEFORE the game started. If you want to say that 4 strikes and you're out...or 5 balls for a walk...you do it BEFORE the game, not during the 7th Inning Stretch.
Also, if you look at JA's own words in his 2022 CoinWeek interview, he is not assigning blame on market grading because he doesn't believe it was a nefarious undertaking, but a semi-rationale response by businessmen and dealers who were faced with unique market forces during heightened volatility during a rising market.
The central point of this debate appears to be the "slider" conundrum between AU and MS coins. I don't see much debate about whether X number of bagmarks drop you from MS-67 to MS-66 or MS-65. The debate seems to be focused on the sliders....the debate on "wear" and friction and "rub"....etc. We had a fascinating back-and-forth on another thread between the 2 sides led by Rexford and CaptHenway and while I learned alot.....I didn't find a definitive conclusion and I am not sure anybody else did, either.
A corollary to the Slider Conundrum is whether net grading is legit (at least that is implied by some posters here). I have read the ANA rules and folks like to say that they are very specific in what they allow. Well, it would also follow that they are specific in NOT prohibiting that which isn't expressly forbidden, namely net grading. And it would therefore seem ALLOWABLE -- or certainly not prohibited -- to have a coin with the SLIGHTEST of wear/friction jump from the AU basement to the MS penthouse. So maybe during rising markets, the market graders decided that a coin that was selling for Mint State $$$ which had the tiniest wear on the singular high point was OK for an MS grade because it had spectacular luster (instead of just full luster) or a razor-sharp strike (instead of just a good strike).
Anyway, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just trying to put some more meat on the bones on something that JA himself didn't necessarily declare to be the root of all grading evil.
@Catbert said:
Edit to add: when I referenced the ANA, I was thinking about it's organizational history (not its early ANACs history) >and how they have failed, in my opinion, of promoting the hobby, in creating innovation, and in expanding >membership. For-profit companies must produce and innovate or they go out of business.
If ANA membership was pushed by all/most coin dealers, shows (big or small), and in publications....and if there were BENEFITS for members (discounts on services, insurance, other useful benefits) it could easily be a win-win for the ANA and new members.
I am in contact with lots of newcomers who have basic questions about grading....insuring their coins....whether to "hide" them in their house or put them in a SDB....electronic webcams and other technological anti-theft measures...and lots of other topics. A magazine or website that addressed these issues would be more attractive to the masses.
What benefits does ANA Membership confer on someone ? Does it provide anything I can't get from the Internet or forums like this ? Can it function like a trade group and keep data points on the hobby so we know how the business and hobby ends are doing (numbers of dealers, show attendance, number of shows, etc.) ?
PCGS being a publicly traded company pumped many dollars into the company where such innovation could be gestated. My "ignorant" take is that a not-for-profit would not have had the same advantages. This is taking nothing away from our learned old hands who worked at the early ANACS.
Edit to add: when I referenced the ANA, I was thinking about it's organizational history (not its early ANACs history) and how they have failed, in my opinion, of promoting the hobby, in creating innovation, and in expanding membership. For-profit companies must produce and innovate or they go out of business.
So, this thread is all about 'feel the love for PCGS'. Hmm........
Once I started the Grading Service we immediately had more business than we could handle. Counting support staff, we went from 4-1/2 people to about 60 in three years.
I thought JA started the grading services? All of them?.......................
@Rexford said:
I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should >be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm not seeing the connection. Weak strikes -- like the die not being filled enough to completely form the high points -- if not forgiven....wouldn't that NOT be contradictory for critics of market grading, as they grade as-is ?
If you're a purist...technical grader.....you won't be forgiving of a poor strike and would assume the dullness on the high points is not a weak strike but in fact rub/wear/friction....right ?
Maybe I'm just reading the sentence wrong, but it seems off to me. Any clarification welcome.
@Rexford said:
What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading >services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC >who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best >common sense?
I think it's because CAC was keeping the TPGs honest -- or so we were told -- and JA was in charge. He's in charge at CACG so the belief is the stringent grading will continue.
Conversely, though involved in the early-stages of both PCGS and NGC (when grading was according to you veterans much stricter), he could not "hold the fort" when the slide involving market or net grading began to take hold at either TPG, dealers, and the public at large (again, see the 2022 CW interview for his thoughts on market grading).
@Rexford said:
I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should >be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm not seeing the connection. Weak strikes -- like the die not being filled enough to completely form the high points -- if not forgiven....wouldn't that NOT be contradictory for critics of market grading, as they grade as-is ?
If you're a purist...technical grader.....you won't be forgiving of a poor strike and would assume the dullness on the high points is not a weak strike but in fact rub/wear/friction ?
I don’t understand the question. “Technical” grading involves a measurement of the technical amount of wear on the surface of a coin. If a coin has a weak strike but no wear, it is MS on a technical scale. If dropped to AU, that would be market grading, because that would be ignoring the technical condition of a coin in favor of the market’s treatment of that coin (assuming the market doesn’t value weak strikes as highly as strong strikes).
Grading standards 20 or 30 years ago had a greater tendency to punish coins for weak strikes, and with circulated coins to concentrate more on visible detail than actual wear (full LIBERTYs, etc). That is a less technical approach.
@Catbert said:
Edit to add: when I referenced the ANA, I was thinking about it's organizational history (not its early ANACs history) >and how they have failed, in my opinion, of promoting the hobby, in creating innovation, and in expanding >membership. For-profit companies must produce and innovate or they go out of business.
If ANA membership was pushed by all/most coin dealers, shows (big or small), and in publications....and if there were BENEFITS for members (discounts on services, insurance, other useful benefits) it could easily be a win-win for the ANA and new members.
I am in contact with lots of newcomers who have basic questions about grading....insuring their coins....whether to "hide" them in their house or put them in a SDB....electronic webcams and other technological anti-theft measures...and lots of other topics. A magazine or website that addressed these issues would be more attractive to the masses.
What benefits does ANA Membership confer on someone ? Does it provide anything I can't get from the Internet or forums like this ? Can it function like a trade group and keep data points on the hobby so we know how the business and hobby ends are doing (numbers of dealers, show attendance, number of shows, etc.) ?
Have you ever looked at a copy of The Numismatist? Just because you are unfamiliar with the ANA doesn't mean they are not doing the things you claim they should.
Once I started the Grading Service we immediately had more business than we could handle. Counting support staff, we went from 4-1/2 people to about 60 in three years.
I thought JA started the grading services? All of them?.......................
The two major authentications services started assigning grades for the public long before a group of dealers came together to start PCGS. I believe Rick Montgomery was hired away from the second grading service located in CO when PCGS was started.
@Rexford said:
I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should >be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm not seeing the connection. Weak strikes -- like the die not being filled enough to completely form the high points -- if not forgiven....wouldn't that NOT be contradictory for critics of market grading, as they grade as-is ?
If you're a purist...technical grader.....you won't be forgiving of a poor strike and would assume the dullness on the high points is not a weak strike but in fact rub/wear/friction....right ?
Maybe I'm just reading the sentence wrong, but it seems off to me. Any clarification welcome.
I've tried to clarify several things posted above (net grading for example) but my thoughts would not post (I thought it was a computer glitch and retyped a much shorter version). My second attempt notified me that my post is being reviewed for content. Additionally, what you wrote about strike needs clarification. Unfortunately, I cannot take time to post my comments in discussions if they are not going to be shared.
@Rexford said:
I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should >be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm not seeing the connection. Weak strikes -- like the die not being filled enough to completely form the high points -- if not forgiven....wouldn't that NOT be contradictory for critics of market grading, as they grade as-is ?
If you're a purist...technical grader.....you won't be forgiving of a poor strike and would assume the dullness on the high points is not a weak strike but in fact rub/wear/friction ?
I don’t understand the question. “Technical” grading involves a measurement of the technical amount of wear on the surface of a coin. If a coin has a weak strike but no wear, it is MS on a technical scale. If dropped to AU, that would be market grading, because that would be ignoring the technical condition of a coin in favor of the market’s treatment of that coin (assuming the market doesn’t value weak strikes as highly as strong strikes).
Grading standards 20 or 30 years ago had a greater tendency to punish coins for weak strikes, and with circulated coins to concentrate more on visible detail than actual wear (full LIBERTYs, etc). That is a less technical approach.
Close. Better??
"Technical” grading involves a measurement of the ACTUAL amount of wear on the surface of a coin. If a coin has a weak strike but no wear, it is MS PERIOD (MS, weakly struck)! If dropped to AU, it would be NET GRADED to indicate it is less desirable and not worth MS money.
Grading standards 20 or 30 years ago had a greater tendency to punish coins for weak strikes, and with circulated coins to concentrate more on visible detail than actual wear.
Lots of great posts. Skipped some. Sorry.
Question, though - I was a YA in the 90s buying exclusively raw coins due to budget. With all this gradeflation and older guys being more conservative than today, does anyone really think my selections from dealings with those guys from 25+ years ago would actually grade what I paid for them as, today?
I really think I was sold a lot of overgraded and damaged stuff that would be laughed off these boards.
I believe in gradeflation as a concept but I’m not sure everyone is helped/hurt the same way. Just a thought (and I was no careless teenager…just a teenager)
@ShaunBC5 said:
Lots of great posts. Skipped some. Sorry.
Question, though - I was a YA in the 90s buying exclusively raw coins due to budget. With all this gradeflation and older guys being more conservative than today, does anyone really think my selections from dealings with those guys from 25+ years ago would actually grade what I paid for them as, today?
I really think I was sold a lot of overgraded and damaged stuff that would be laughed off these boards.
I believe in gradeflation as a concept but I’m not sure everyone is helped/hurt the same way. Just a thought (and I was no careless teenager…just a teenager)
Edit - tons of typos, hopefully caught and fixed.
The answer really depends on the dealer not the time period. There are always both honest, conservative dealers and more liberal dealers. There are also simply ignorant dealers as well as excellent ones. After all, there's no certification required to call yourself a dealer.
@jmlanzaf said:
Have you ever looked at a copy of The Numismatist? Just because you are unfamiliar with the ANA doesn't mean >they are not doing the things you claim they should.
Not in a while, I should...fair point, JM.
Hopefully they make past issues available to sample. I get trial offers all the time and it really irks me when they don't give you a 48-hour free pass or a past issue or two to peruse.
@jmlanzaf thanks for the response. I totally agree with you, which was kind of my point.
Acting like everyone graded more conservatively 30 years ago is as reckless as acting like everyone has loosened up lately.
I dealt with lots of guys who were honest. Definitely bought some junk along the way, too.
Maybe the point of the original article is only the tip top of market, which is neither here nor there for me, but as a collector in maybe the middle third of the market, I don’t know that everything applies.
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good >coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic >interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
JA's 2022 CoinWeek interview said pretty much the same thing. It's during rising periods of price/demand and also bubbles that Gradeflation seeps in. He even said it was normal...to be expected....and if you fought it, you basically had to commit financial suicide.
It's NOT an easy thing to resist as he explained with the 1985 Type sets (maybe a veteran here can give more color and details on what he was talking about).
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
100% this. I think this is a big diver of gradeflation and is a separate (though perhaps tangentially related) mechanism from the discussion on evolving standards.
Not sure how it could be prevented unless the TPGs could determine whether a coin has been submitted before - possibly through database photographic comparison.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
Too bad the grading companies don't accept responsibility for CACG downgrades.
As Warren Mills said he was upset by far too many maxed out coins on boarse floors and in auctions, of what he called the "walking wounded" in the certified coin most visible populations residing in plastic slabs, their final resting place.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
Too bad the grading companies don't accept responsibility for CACG downgrades.
Why would they be held responsible for the standards of a different company?
@logger7 said:
As Warren Mills said he was upset by far too many maxed out coins on boarse floors and in auctions, of what he called the "walking wounded" in the certified coin most visible populations residing in plastic slabs, their final resting place.
I've heard dealers refer to maxed out coins in slabs as being "coffin coins" which describes them perfectly.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums…
@Pumpkinhead said:
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums…
Not really, as there’s quite a bit of subjectivity in grading. It’s not as objective or consistent as many of us would prefer. Additionally, coins of the same grade can look very different from one another, in terms of both quality and eye appeal - hence very different prices/values can result.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
@jmlanzaf said: "Except registry sets. They did convince people to spend $30 slabbing $3 coins for their registry sets. Brilliant!"
Don't forget custom labels for "special" coins and who wouldn't want one of the first 100,000 "initial release" coins from a 37,000,000 mintage!
That's OK as long as you learned something. That along with our interactions with other members is the best part of CU. I know because that is exactly what I missed during the years I was banned. As a coin snob, I find the number of "quality" numismatists posting here to be very high.
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
I will readily admit I have been fooled many a times, by the number on the slab, by the coin itself. And, I learned from it each time.
One problem that can be difficult to overcome is time. With enough time, one can properly evaluate a coin. With enough time, one can learn the skills to do said proper evaluation. And with said skill, the time required becomes less to properly evaluate. If you don't give yourself enough time to evaluate, you will make mistakes or decisions you aren't the happiest with. My worst regrets came from making snap decisions on coins and not taking the time to evaluate, whether its my own observation, or comparing it to known samples (ie coinfacts) if it's a series I'm less familiar with.
The only way to protect ourselves is to learn to grade ourselves as you have encouraged hundreds of times on this forum, including myself. It's not a skill that comes overnight, and it takes time and effort.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Dissing CAC or PCGS are against forum rules, but hardly a mortal sin. And CAC criticism is constant on this forum despite that.
We are well aware of your dislike of many forumites. Is there a need to constantly state it? Does that make you "mean" or maybe "pretentious"?
I love this, especially since the paragraph that follows is very much rooted in opinion and not fact (and I would opine is largely incorrect).
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Actually I like a lot of forum members, but you are correct there a few I don’t like.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
I wish you had quoted this member, I had to hunt for it. Give the newbie a break, what do you disagree with? I can't help you. Grading was stricter. Compared to what goes on today, old grading was called conservative and technical.
Decades ago, Bowers revealed to the general public the big secret in the commercial coin market that AU's were now being graded MS. And finally, everyone is griping about how tight CACG is. I can attest to everything he posted. In fact, on some forum I posted that my grading service removed 4-or 6 (I can't remember) Morgan dollars "detailed " by CACG that were submitted to us by a CACG shareholder into straight grade slabs!
PS I was there the entire time @married wrote about and witnessed the grading changes myself as I consider myself an old conservative, technical grader.
"People toss about the term "conservative" when talking about coin grading. What does that mean? At one time. the standards for grading were much stricter than they are today. That is why an older collector is called a conservative grader by assigning the REAL grade to a coin. Yesterday's AU coins, now graded MS by today's collectors does not change the coin's actual condition! IMO, that old guy is not grading conservatively, he is grading accurately! Why do you think there is a big stink in the forums about CACG? Is it possibly becuse they are grading coins closer to what they actually are? We (dealers and collectors) made this mess by ignoring the naked truth and fudging the grading systemall these years.
So, I'm very interested to read what you consider to be largely incorrect in the post I quoted for you. Thanks in advance.
I'm sure we could all say the same thing. It's all good.
The largely incorrect part is the insinuation that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not, or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways, and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU. This does not mean that I agree with all changes that have occurred (for instance, I think the line on Morgans in superb gem grades is currently too loose), but the harping on about the good old days when grading was “real” is in my view largely yelling at clouds and perhaps indicative of a lack of true understanding regarding the reasoning behind current grading approaches. This, of course, is also an opinion of mine, and not a fact (as some present their opinions to be) - but I have had the benefit of being inside the grading room in the current era, witnessing the thought processes that take place now, and juxtaposing those with standards of the old days.
It is understandable that those who were raised on old grading methods would view current methods as flawed. People don’t like change, and they tend to idealize and cling to the things that they are comfortable with. Older generations have moaned about the disintegration of social order among the youth for thousands of years, without realizing that society is in fact progressing as a whole.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
One thing that is a fact though is a coin is either MS or Au at any given moment in time. So 30 years ago the same coin cannot be graded differently today. Either it is MS or it is AU, no real gray area.
Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Excellent post, and some good points here.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
I will agree that human graders make the distinction between MS and AU based upon their tolerance for friction and wear and degree of magnification employed.
But I have the utmost confidence in the world class graders at CACG AND CAC making the best common sense decisions on correctly identifying the true MS vs AU coins almost all the time.
If you agree that humans decide that distinction, then it’s an oxymoron to state that the graders at CAC/CACG are solely correctly identifying true MS and AU coins. What leads you to think that CACG and CAC graders have more sense than other graders at the current grading services? All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I am saying MOST of the time not every time. I think these graders are among the best out there that were hired by JA. Not saying there aren’t many other expert graders that can make good calls, but there is a reason JA hired them.
That’s a big assumption to make. Are you familiar with the main graders at the other grading services? There are many factors that may have prevented other, potentially more skilled graders from taking that job - such as location and current employment. The supply of graders available for a project like that is very limited, so picking out the “best” would be very difficult.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Okay agree with that point you made, but I think the best graders will make the correct call most of the time.
There’a also the issue that those hiring choices rely on JA’s opinion of who the “best” is - is he really familiar with who the “best” graders are at the other TPGs anymore? He hasn’t been inside those grading rooms for a while. And, he might have picked graders who were more willing to work using his grading line, which isn’t necessarily the “best” or most “common sense” line - it’s just his line. The benefit that CAC provides (or provided) is the consistency of opinion when using a skilled one-man team - which is definitely useful, but it doesn’t mean that the one-man team is the best team or the be-all-end-all opinion.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I don't have the experience that many of you do. I'm at best an intermediate compared to many of you who are veteran experts. I humbly admit that.
One thing I am good at recognizing is markets (financial professional). And as I understand it market grading and gradeflation are caused by and most prevalent during strong pricing periods and/or bubbles.
JA himself even said as much in an interview with CoinWeek when CACG was announced in late-2022:
https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/
He admits that grading changed (some even said it on the stuff they sold at high prices !!) because if you want to be a player and the rules have changed, you either change or you lose the business...or go OUT of business !!
In JA's own words:
"...I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher.
I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again."
I personally think that CAC DID provide a big benefit as a check on the graders. I'm NOT as sure that CACG as a new TPG will provide the same check. Maybe they will -- but JA himself does NOT blame those who adapted during previous market-grading shifts. In fact, in the CW piece he is downright sympathetic to their plight; you might have thought he was dismissive or critical but that was NOT the case. Maybe he's the outlier and will resist; he already has his CAC legacy plus his previous TPG history to backstop him. And he is notoriously tough grader on gold coins, including Saints. So maybe this is the dam that holds back the gradeflation and market grading water.
It will certainly depend on many variables: how CACG scales their business, which coins they target, bigtime collections they may or may not get, whether they gain market share from other TPGs, how "tough" they are on popular coin sets like MSDs and DEs; their approach to sliders and other controversial modern debates, etc. Many of these debates are above my pay grade as someone without all of your experiences doing this on a much higher and larger scale than me for a much longer period of time. And the bigtime collectors who sometimes post here will also have a big say in how this all turns out.
I have seen this play before in my field with the big debates in the past -- and again today !! -- with value and growth stock investing debates. It takes nerves of steel to stick to one's guns and lose billions in assets and millions in fees not knowing if it's the 2nd inning or 9th inning of a move to one style or the other. If you own the business, you just lose $$$ and your reputation. If you work for somebody, you might be calling the unemployment office as you lose your job by sticking to your guns and past standards.
BTW, Warren Mills is mentioned in the CW article.
You are certainly the definition of company man.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
That's what I think too and have stated it....but then I get pushback that our small little niche would be totally disrupted (destroyed ?) if you had 1 or 2 more Bob Simpson-like tech gazillionaires spending a few million dollars every month on coins, prices be damned.
If we had a slow but steady increase in dealers, investors, and collectors....then I think that could be more easily absorbed over time into the market. Certainly, niche sectors like U.S. Small Denomination coins that have little or no PM content have faced larger demographic headwinds than MSDs or DEs or Eagles. Whether the decade-plus bear market in those coins ended in 2020 or not (nice move in the PCGS 3000 Index the last 4 years)... remains to be seen.
I've been surprised that more published data -- anectdotal or numerical -- is not available or visible from trade groups, associations, etc. But the PCGS 3000 Index has been on a tear since 2020's bottom and could be looking to retake the pre-GFC post-1989 Bubble highs which could be significant.
Even threads here talking about how individual B&M coin dealers traffic trends are now compared to year past -- boom times and bust times -- would be useful for a State Of The Hobby analysis.
@Rexford
Thanks for a fast response. I don't have time to read this thread and reply yet but this statement **derailed **any desire to read further until later. It is all I need to read to form an opinion about anything else you wrote UNTIL I READ IT tonight:
_"The largely [???] incorrect part is the insinuation [???] that older grading was “real” or “technical” grading and that present-day grading is not_, [Any fool can come up with a new grading system. Any fool can rewrite what constitutes a specific grade. Any greedy wolf can scam the public into not believing what is obvious to their own eyes. The FACT IS THAT ANY INTELLEGENT NUMISMATIST knows the standards of yesterday (real standards at that time) have been shattered and discarded to come up with different, loose standards (the real standards at this moment). That is NOT an insinuation!] or that there is a correlation between strictness and accuracy. [Unfortunately, the fact that all TPGS change grades for the same coin down but mostly up PROVES that their is NO ACCURACY to begin with. The more strict a coin is graded the more precise that grade will be any time the coin is seen in the future BECAUSE the "wiggle room" is lessened.]. _Standards may have changed, but that does not mean that old standards were superior, more consistent, or more accurate. _ While I understand that you must be a very important professional, since I know for a fact that you were not around or involved with the strict "Ivory Tower" (old standards called "technical") grading being done with magnification by folks who did not care or know about the value, ownership, etc. of the tiny round metal bits they graded... It is my personal opinion that you do not have the knowledge to talk about the grading being done for internal records at the ANA's Authentication Service in DC or the First TPGS - INSAB.
Until I return to this discussion if I am not banned again for speaking my mind, I'll leave you and others with this. Read the description of grades in Penny Whimsey. We don't grade that way today because those "STANDARDS" are too strict. That does not make them wrong. They were the standards at one time yet **standards are not standards if they are variable. **
PS I'm not trying to bring back a precise strict grading system, we have moved way too far from calling a pig a pig. I just enjoy posting my thoughts about the "old days" with the "big guys" that post here.
New introductions always have demand exceeding supply: new auto models, graded sports cards a few years ago, NFTs, etc.
As the supply of CACG holders increases, the "newness" premium will dissipate.
@Rexford posted: "...but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU.
Therefore, IMHO anyone who thinks that a large number of coins graded MS are truly MS and not AU may need to examine them a little closer. My company and every company and dealership grades/purchases/sells coins that are not truly MS as Mint State. That's the way it is because everyone is happy to live with those loose standards. The fact is that some coins that were even called XF in the old days are now called MS! IMO, to deny this FACT wipes out an entire chapter of the evolution of coin grading in the U.S. We may not agree with history, but tearing down a statue from the past such as "a Mint State coin shows no trace of wear" puts us into a certain group I don't wish to belong to.
I think the stink is more because the rules of the game were changed midway through the game....instead of BEFORE the game started. If you want to say that 4 strikes and you're out...or 5 balls for a walk...you do it BEFORE the game, not during the 7th Inning Stretch.
Also, if you look at JA's own words in his 2022 CoinWeek interview, he is not assigning blame on market grading because he doesn't believe it was a nefarious undertaking, but a semi-rationale response by businessmen and dealers who were faced with unique market forces during heightened volatility during a rising market.
The central point of this debate appears to be the "slider" conundrum between AU and MS coins. I don't see much debate about whether X number of bagmarks drop you from MS-67 to MS-66 or MS-65. The debate seems to be focused on the sliders....the debate on "wear" and friction and "rub"....etc. We had a fascinating back-and-forth on another thread between the 2 sides led by Rexford and CaptHenway and while I learned alot.....I didn't find a definitive conclusion and I am not sure anybody else did, either.
A corollary to the Slider Conundrum is whether net grading is legit (at least that is implied by some posters here). I have read the ANA rules and folks like to say that they are very specific in what they allow. Well, it would also follow that they are specific in NOT prohibiting that which isn't expressly forbidden, namely net grading. And it would therefore seem ALLOWABLE -- or certainly not prohibited -- to have a coin with the SLIGHTEST of wear/friction jump from the AU basement to the MS penthouse. So maybe during rising markets, the market graders decided that a coin that was selling for Mint State $$$ which had the tiniest wear on the singular high point was OK for an MS grade because it had spectacular luster (instead of just full luster) or a razor-sharp strike (instead of just a good strike).
Anyway, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just trying to put some more meat on the bones on something that JA himself didn't necessarily declare to be the root of all grading evil.
If ANA membership was pushed by all/most coin dealers, shows (big or small), and in publications....and if there were BENEFITS for members (discounts on services, insurance, other useful benefits) it could easily be a win-win for the ANA and new members.
I am in contact with lots of newcomers who have basic questions about grading....insuring their coins....whether to "hide" them in their house or put them in a SDB....electronic webcams and other technological anti-theft measures...and lots of other topics. A magazine or website that addressed these issues would be more attractive to the masses.
What benefits does ANA Membership confer on someone ? Does it provide anything I can't get from the Internet or forums like this ? Can it function like a trade group and keep data points on the hobby so we know how the business and hobby ends are doing (numbers of dealers, show attendance, number of shows, etc.) ?
So, this thread is all about 'feel the love for PCGS'. Hmm........
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I thought JA started the grading services? All of them?.......................
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I'm not seeing the connection. Weak strikes -- like the die not being filled enough to completely form the high points -- if not forgiven....wouldn't that NOT be contradictory for critics of market grading, as they grade as-is ?
If you're a purist...technical grader.....you won't be forgiving of a poor strike and would assume the dullness on the high points is not a weak strike but in fact rub/wear/friction....right ?
Maybe I'm just reading the sentence wrong, but it seems off to me. Any clarification welcome.
I think it's because CAC was keeping the TPGs honest -- or so we were told -- and JA was in charge. He's in charge at CACG so the belief is the stringent grading will continue.
Conversely, though involved in the early-stages of both PCGS and NGC (when grading was according to you veterans much stricter), he could not "hold the fort" when the slide involving market or net grading began to take hold at either TPG, dealers, and the public at large (again, see the 2022 CW interview for his thoughts on market grading).
I don’t understand the question. “Technical” grading involves a measurement of the technical amount of wear on the surface of a coin. If a coin has a weak strike but no wear, it is MS on a technical scale. If dropped to AU, that would be market grading, because that would be ignoring the technical condition of a coin in favor of the market’s treatment of that coin (assuming the market doesn’t value weak strikes as highly as strong strikes).
Grading standards 20 or 30 years ago had a greater tendency to punish coins for weak strikes, and with circulated coins to concentrate more on visible detail than actual wear (full LIBERTYs, etc). That is a less technical approach.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Have you ever looked at a copy of The Numismatist? Just because you are unfamiliar with the ANA doesn't mean they are not doing the things you claim they should.
The two major authentications services started assigning grades for the public long before a group of dealers came together to start PCGS. I believe Rick Montgomery was hired away from the second grading service located in CO when PCGS was started.
I've tried to clarify several things posted above (net grading for example) but my thoughts would not post (I thought it was a computer glitch and retyped a much shorter version). My second attempt notified me that my post is being reviewed for content. Additionally, what you wrote about strike needs clarification. Unfortunately, I cannot take time to post my comments in discussions if they are not going to be shared.
Close.
Better??
"Technical” grading involves a measurement of the ACTUAL amount of wear on the surface of a coin. If a coin has a weak strike but no wear, it is MS PERIOD (MS, weakly struck)! If dropped to AU, it would be NET GRADED to indicate it is less desirable and not worth MS money.
Grading standards 20 or 30 years ago had a greater tendency to punish coins for weak strikes, and with circulated coins to concentrate more on visible detail than actual wear.
Lots of great posts. Skipped some. Sorry.
Question, though - I was a YA in the 90s buying exclusively raw coins due to budget. With all this gradeflation and older guys being more conservative than today, does anyone really think my selections from dealings with those guys from 25+ years ago would actually grade what I paid for them as, today?
I really think I was sold a lot of overgraded and damaged stuff that would be laughed off these boards.
I believe in gradeflation as a concept but I’m not sure everyone is helped/hurt the same way. Just a thought (and I was no careless teenager…just a teenager)
Edit - tons of typos, hopefully caught and fixed.
The answer really depends on the dealer not the time period. There are always both honest, conservative dealers and more liberal dealers. There are also simply ignorant dealers as well as excellent ones. After all, there's no certification required to call yourself a dealer.
Not in a while, I should...fair point, JM.
Hopefully they make past issues available to sample. I get trial offers all the time and it really irks me when they don't give you a 48-hour free pass or a past issue or two to peruse.
@jmlanzaf thanks for the response. I totally agree with you, which was kind of my point.
Acting like everyone graded more conservatively 30 years ago is as reckless as acting like everyone has loosened up lately.
I dealt with lots of guys who were honest. Definitely bought some junk along the way, too.
Maybe the point of the original article is only the tip top of market, which is neither here nor there for me, but as a collector in maybe the middle third of the market, I don’t know that everything applies.
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
JA's 2022 CoinWeek interview said pretty much the same thing. It's during rising periods of price/demand and also bubbles that Gradeflation seeps in. He even said it was normal...to be expected....and if you fought it, you basically had to commit financial suicide.
It's NOT an easy thing to resist as he explained with the 1985 Type sets (maybe a veteran here can give more color and details on what he was talking about).
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
100% this. I think this is a big diver of gradeflation and is a separate (though perhaps tangentially related) mechanism from the discussion on evolving standards.
Not sure how it could be prevented unless the TPGs could determine whether a coin has been submitted before - possibly through database photographic comparison.
Too bad the grading companies don't accept responsibility for CACG downgrades.
As Warren Mills said he was upset by far too many maxed out coins on boarse floors and in auctions, of what he called the "walking wounded" in the certified coin most visible populations residing in plastic slabs, their final resting place.
Why would they be held responsible for the standards of a different company?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I've heard dealers refer to maxed out coins in slabs as being "coffin coins" which describes them perfectly.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums…
Not really, as there’s quite a bit of subjectivity in grading. It’s not as objective or consistent as many of us would prefer. Additionally, coins of the same grade can look very different from one another, in terms of both quality and eye appeal - hence very different prices/values can result.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.