"While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation."
It's true that the written standards do say that uncirculated coins have no trace of wear.
However, anyone who has been around knows that this is not accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
Policy changes, even if not written, spoken, official or acknowledged, can easily lead to gradeflation.
.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
Although a strict definition of gradeflation probably only means the historical grade increases by the TPGs over time for a similar looking coin then in the past, what bothers me more is the clean grading of obvious 'details' coins. Maybe because I do not deal in 5 figure & higher end coins, what mostly amounts to a 1 step bump of grade I can live with. Yes some coins are given a 2+ step bump sometimes, esp when the AU58-MS decision is invoked, and obvious wear/friction should not be given an MS grade. Coins are under and over-graded and all of us have differing grading opinions with there is a GTG. Having consistency would be great but will never happen.
But giving a market acceptable 'clean' grade by the experts on an obviously over-dipped, cleaned, scratched, grafitti coin is totally unacceptable to me. I wouldn't care if submitted 100 times, they should never get a clean grade. Now some will say, learn to grade and with the issues being obvious, know what you're getting and pay accordingly.
But I think giving a clean net-grade cheapens that grade for everyone. Although I could list dozens of examples from the dreck on EBAY, here's a few picked at random in a 2 minute search. Easily not the worse I've seen but when deeply circulated coins are over-dipped I cringe.
Now not wishing to disclose the seller, pick on them or the coin, but the clean grade. To me, this is the worst gradeflation issue since I would think these got bodybagged 20 years ago.
Inserting another grade into the grading scale, say between XF and MS, not really gradeflation.
Trick question. It was already done long ago. The grade was AU and the coins that filled that grade were mostly former XF's. I call that "gradeflation."
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
Policy changes, even if not written, spoken, official or acknowledged, can easily lead to gradeflation.
.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
I think the conscious decision of one TPGS to only consider the bottom set of bell lines on a Franklin 50c for a FBL designation rather than both sets is one example.
@Mr_Spud said:
It might not be the grading companies lowering their standards. It might be that, if a coin looks like it has a chance of getting a higher grade then people resubmit it more frequently than a coin that doesn’t look like it has a chance of getting a higher grade.
Since the coin that looks like it has a chance of getting a higher grade gets resubmitted, it has a much greater chance of eventually getting a higher grade.
Re shot coins, yes, and no. People do resubmit these coins more frequently. Occasionally they do upgrade, but I think it's rare. But when someone does get a major upgrade, they usually tell everyone on the planet about it, so some may feel this happens more frequently than it actually does.
Many years ago, I heard one dealer bragging to another that on his 11th try, he got a Seated Dollar upgraded from an MS 64 to an MS 65.
Personally, once -- and only once -- I was looking for a plus on a nice MS 66 coin and it came back MS 67. That is the only major upgrade (and I think it was a gift of some sort) in all of the years I have been collecting coins.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
Policy changes, even if not written, spoken, official or acknowledged, can easily lead to gradeflation.
.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
Policy changes, even if not written, spoken, official or acknowledged, can easily lead to gradeflation.
.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
How can the process of coins getting resubmitted and receiving higher grades not fit into a definition of grading coins increasingly more generously over time? We’re talking about the very same coins grading one grade, then later, a different/higher grade (and in some cases, grading yet another even higher grade).
Resubmissions are one cause of gradeflation. Another is awarding higher grades to ungraded coins than would have been given for the same coins (or the same quality coins) previously.
I believe that anyone who’s compared the populations of a large number of top pop modern coins over time has zero doubt regarding the reality of gradeflation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
The problem with your 100 million number is that most of them are moderns> @ProofCollection said:
I will continue to express my doubts about gradeflation as I always have. Consistency is difficult and while the OP offers an arbitrary figure of 1% over graded, I would surmise that statistically, if you could have a company like PCGS and only misgrade (better or worse) 5% of coins you'd be doing really well and 10% might even be difficult. And with 1 in 20 being misgraded, you're going to encounter misgraded coins in the marketplace constantly. And, those misgraded coins will probably get more attention and be remembered more than the correctly graded ones contributing to an exaggerated impression of accuracy.
From a mathematical standpoint, if you had a constant flow of an even spectrum of coins through a grading company, undoubtedly the average or mean grade would drift over time that you could plot on a chart that should theoretically resemble a sinusoidal wave as human graders naturally drift tighter or looser based on any number of factors over time or even throughout the day. But there is a limit to how wide the spectrum is. I will venture to say that the 3 Sigma distribution is probably +/- 0.6 to 0.7 points where (for example) an average but solid MS64.5 gets assigned an MS65 or the same coin ends up in an MS63 or MS63+ holder at the extremes. That is the theoretical limit for gradeflation because any more extreme and the error becomes to obvious. Now I guess the question to show gradeflation is, does the variance spend more time on the positive side of the variance more than the negative side? Statistically this should not happen.
Of course I have to state that there are always exception and corner cases where extenuating circumstances may lead to occasional larger errors but these should be fairly rare so please don't derail the conversation by talking about that one coin that was MS63 and ended up in a 66 holder.
Another reason why gradeflation is difficult in practicality is that grading is a spectrum. A 1 will always be an awful coin and a 70 will always be as good as it gets. Everything else must fall in between. And as we all know, the UNC spectrum goes from 60 to 70. If gradeflation was real, eventually we'd stop seeing 60's and 1's and as it got worse we'd stop seeing 61's and 2's.
Not if 58’s move up into the UNC ranks
While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation.
Policy changes, even if not written, spoken, official or acknowledged, can easily lead to gradeflation.
.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
How can the process of coins getting resubmitted and receiving higher grades not fit into a definition of grading coins increasingly more generously over time? We’re talking about the very same coins grading one grade, then later, a different/higher grade (and in some cases, grading yet another even higher grade).
Because you're conflating the act of assigning grades with the actual population of inflated coins. If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time, then that is a different phenomena than the tendency of coins to end up in higher graded slabs due to resubmissions.
I think these are important distinctions because some collectors blame the TPGs and think a company like CACG will be immune to the first definition of gradeflation through "strict standards." However, statistically if you resubmit that MS64.8 to CACG enough times it will end up in an MS65 slab. I don't think it's right to describe that phenomena as gradeflation when it is a "feature" (or flaw) due to the subjectivity of grading and TPG policies that basically prevent a downgrade on a regrade.
Resubmissions are one cause of gradeflation. Another is awarding higher grades to ungraded coins than would have been given for the same coins (or the same quality coins) previously.
I believe that anyone who’s compared the populations of a large number of top pop modern coins over time has zero doubt regarding the reality of gradeflation.
Maybe. In the case of these top pop modern coins, the pop is either growing because MS(top-1) coins are getting that statistical break upon resubmission or new coins are being crossed over and/or discovered and submitted from millions of unopened rolls and mint and proof sets, not because the graders at your favorite TPG have loosened their standards.
Edited to add:
I think it might make sense to coin a term for the phenomena of "tendency of coins to end up in higher graded slabs due to resubmissions." Something like "grade creep" might be a good term for this. To me, "gradeflation" implies a flaw in the process of assigning a grade, while "grade creep" describes the tendency and ability for a coin to creep up in grade with multiple evaluation attempts
Inserting another grade into the grading scale, say between XF and MS, not really gradeflation.
Trick question. It was already done long ago. The grade was AU and the coins that filled that grade were mostly former XF's. I call that "gradeflation."
If it didn't affect what was an XF and what was/is and UNC, then I would not call this gradeflation. This is a recalibration because the existing grades were never inflated.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
And, yes, I remember when a VF Buffalo had to have a full horn and a full "Liberty" was required for a fine in several series (IHC, Barbers). Seeing the evolution of TPG grading from INS and ANA in the 1970s to today really gives one a valuable perspective that I don't think that more recent observers, who maybe only witnessed the last decade or two, are able to appreciate.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
And, yes, I remember when a VF Buffalo had to have a full horn and a full "Liberty" was required for a fine in several series (IHC, Barbers). Seeing the evolution of TPG grading from INS and ANA in the 1970s to today really gives one a valuable perspective that I don't think that more recent observers, who maybe only witnessed the last decade or two, are able to appreciate.
The market didn’t redefine the grades - that would be impossible without participation from the TPG’s. And it appears that over time, the grading companies have either adopted more lax standards (or interpreted whatever the existing ones were, more liberally).
Below is just one from among many possible examples to show how populations of top pop/high grade coins have soared. I didn’t cherry-pick it to try to make a point - it was the first one I came across. And I don’t think the numbers are just due to the passage of time/more submissions or regrades.
This is data for a PCGS MS68 1936-D Columbia commemorative half dollar.
August 2013 MS68 population 21
June 2020 MS68 population 41 (This represents a 20 coin or 95% increase in less than 7 years, compared to a total of only 21 having been graded the first approximately 27 years.) During the same time period, the MS67 population increased by approximately 44% and the MS66 population increased by approximately 18%.
January 2022 MS68 population 45
June 2023 MS68 population 53
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
Has anyone come up with a standard definition for “gradeflation”?
It's like pornography...you know it when you see it !!
Seriously....you've had some famous (infamous ?) threads, including here, talk about folks submitting coins and not being able to get an upgrade....then someone else does it and VOILA....next higher grade, sometimes 1 1/2 grades higher, and even a CAC sticker. It can be frustrating, I guess, to see someone else get the jump that catapaults the coin to 5-10X higher in value, while you re-submitted 2 or 3 times and got nowhere.
And this isn't jumping in the AU-50's....it's in the MS-60's (at least from the threads I have seen).
Sometimes the value of a coin 20 years ago wasn't worth submitting so top pops were lower. Once the price increases more coins come out of the woodwork and get submitted which in turn means more top pop coins come to light. There are many more silver Roosevelt dimes slabbed now a days then there were 20 or 30 years ago. A long time ago when I built my Roosie set most of the coins graded MS67 were tough to come by yet most were only $20 coins. The 68's were especially tough to come by yet still were relatively cheap. There are many multiples more in 67 now and higher 68 pops mainly due to more submissions as they became worth the cost of slabbing.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said:
Sometimes the value of a coin 20 years ago wasn't worth submitting so top pops were lower. Once the price increases more coins come out of the woodwork and get submitted which in turn means more top pop coins come to light. There are many more silver Roosevelt dimes slabbed now a days then there were 20 or 30 years ago. A long time ago when I built my Roosie set most of the coins graded MS67 were tough to come by yet most were only $20 coins. The 68's were especially tough to come by yet still were relatively cheap. There are many multiples more in 67 now and higher 68 pops mainly due to more submissions as they became worth the cost of slabbing.
See the chart below and prices during the past 30+ years. I think it at least partially contradicts your explanation.
@MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery which changed it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery which changed it.
The chart shows that overall, prices haven’t gone up that much during the past 30 years, so there wouldn’t necessarily be that many more top pop coins worth submitting.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
Has anyone come up with a standard definition for “gradeflation”?
It's like pornography...you know it when you see it !!
Seriously....you've had some famous (infamous ?) threads, including here, talk about folks submitting coins and not being able to get an upgrade....then someone else does it and VOILA....next higher grade, sometimes 1 1/2 grades higher, and even a CAC sticker. It can be frustrating, I guess, to see someone else get the jump that catapaults the coin to 5-10X higher in value, while you re-submitted 2 or 3 times and got nowhere.
And this isn't jumping in the AU-50's....it's in the MS-60's (at least from the threads I have seen).
I’ve heard it described as “the tendency of grades to become higher and as years go on due to overgrading.”
But it could easily be described as “the tendency for grades to become higher over the years to correct for rampant undergrading the years before.”
Who’s to say the say the first is more correct than the second? Perhaps the OP had a point here.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increase and there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increaseand there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increaseand there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
I don't think top pops are the place to look. We had one case a few years ago where a top pop Liberty nickel had a pop of 10 or 12 but most of those were the same coin that had been submitted numerous times trying to get a +.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increaseand there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
I don't think top pops are the place to look. We had one case a few years ago where a top pop Liberty nickel had a pop of 10 or 12 but most of those were the same coin that had been submitted numerous times trying to get a +.
There was also a relatively large group of 1912-D(?) Liberty nickels which surfaced several years ago and skewed the upper end of the population rather dramatically. But both your example and mine are largely bedside the point.
I research coin values on a daily basis. And on a great many occasions, I’ve noticed that the populations of higher grade coins - largely moderns - have jumped significantly. I don’t know how many of them are due to regrades, resubmissions or new-to-market coins. And sure, some of them were likely graded too low, previously and ended up at more deserving grades. Regardless, I have no doubt that over time, I’ve been seeing gradeflation at work.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increaseand there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
I don't think top pops are the place to look. We had one case a few years ago where a top pop Liberty nickel had a pop of 10 or 12 but most of those were the same coin that had been submitted numerous times trying to get a +.
There was also a relatively large group of 1912-D(?) Liberty nickels which surfaced several years ago and skewed the upper end of the population rather dramatically. But both your example and mine are largely bedside the point.
I research coin values on a daily basis. And on a great many occasions, I’ve noticed that the populations of higher grade coins - largely moderns - have jumped significantly. I don’t know how many of them are due to regrades, resubmissions or new-to-market coins. And sure, some of them were likely graded too low, previously and ended up at more deserving grades. Regardless, I have no doubt that over time, I’ve been seeing gradeflation at work.
I'm not arguing against it. I'm just not sure that is the place to look for evidence.
@VanHalen said:
Can't the same coin be in the Pop Report 10 times if it's resubmited 10 times looking for a higher grade (crack out)?
That scenario would result in the coin being counted in the pop report 11 times, not 10.😉 But in answer to your question, yes , if the coin’s cracked out each time and the old grading labels aren’t turned in.
But it ignores all of the other coins for which that doesn’t occur. And then there are the many instances of the same coin being seen in a holder at one grade level, then later in a holder at one or more higher grades.
After this post and the other one to which I just replied, I’m done beating the poor dead (gradeflation) horse.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@gumby1234 said: @MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect >top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery >which changed it.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increaseand there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
I don't think top pops are the place to look. We had one case a few years ago where a top pop Liberty nickel had a pop of 10 or 12 but most of those were the same coin that had been submitted numerous times trying to get a +.
There was also a relatively large group of 1912-D(?) Liberty nickels which surfaced several years ago and skewed the upper end of the population rather dramatically. But both your example and mine are largely bedside the point.
I research coin values on a daily basis. And on a great many occasions, I’ve noticed that the populations of higher grade coins - largely moderns - have jumped significantly. I don’t know how many of them are due to regrades, resubmissions or new-to-market coins. And sure, some of them were likely graded too low, previously and ended up at more deserving grades. Regardless, I have no doubt that over time, I’ve been seeing gradeflation at work.
I'm not arguing against it. I'm just not sure that is the place to look for evidence.
I don’t go looking for the evidence. It comes to me while I’m doing my research.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Any thoughts on the possibility the TPG's relaxed the standards to promote resubmissions and crackouts. After all, if a coin is graded the 1st time around and unless seriously undergraded , very little chance of getting an upgrade based on the standards in place at the outset of the TPG's. I wonder what the % of their business is crack outs, regrades and reconsiderations.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
And, yes, I remember when a VF Buffalo had to have a full horn and a full "Liberty" was required for a fine in several series (IHC, Barbers). Seeing the evolution of TPG grading from INS and ANA in the 1970s to today really gives one a valuable perspective that I don't think that more recent observers, who maybe only witnessed the last decade or two, are able to appreciate.
Add over a long period of time. Otherwise the definition is flawed because of the tight/loose changes due to economic conditions that affect the commercial coin market.
This has been noted but, crackouts and resubmissions have the Pop Reports so screwed up it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from hard data.
Anecdotally, the move toward market-grading accounts for some gradeflation.
The move to market grading was made by Sheldon himself...
I disagree. The Sheldon scale specifically described in words what the details remaining on a coin were for each grade. he called his scale: A QUANTITATIVE SCALE FOR CONDITION. It was a grading guide INCLUDED in the first part of his book, Penny Whimsy.
At the end of the chapter Sheldon included a way to estimate a coins value based on its grade. Something that has continued today.
"Market Grading" values a coin. Since the economic condition of the market changes a coin's value, it's grade is subject to change. Large increases in value over time has caused major changes in grade for many coins.
The Sheldon Scale is very strict. The Archival grading used for internal records at the ANA Authentication Service in Washington and then used at the first coin grading service was based on Sheldon's strict system. Unfortunately, the coin market thrives on wiggle room so a precise, strict grading system that remained constant over time and was unrelated to rarity or value became obsolete.
PS IMO, the first 57 pages of Sheldon's book is one of the things that should be on every collector's reading list.
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
And, yes, I remember when a VF Buffalo had to have a full horn and a full "Liberty" was required for a fine in several series (IHC, Barbers). Seeing the evolution of TPG grading from INS and ANA in the 1970s to today really gives one a valuable perspective that I don't think that more recent observers, who maybe only witnessed the last decade or two, are able to appreciate.
The market didn’t redefine the grades - that would be impossible without participation from the TPG’s. And it appears that over time, the grading companies have either adopted more lax standards (or interpreted whatever the existing ones were, more liberally).
Below is just one from among many possible examples to show how populations of top pop/high grade coins have soared. I didn’t cherry-pick it to try to make a point - it was the first one I came across. And I don’t think the numbers are just due to the passage of time/more submissions or regrades.
This is data for a PCGS MS68 1936-D Columbia commemorative half dollar.
August 2013 MS68 population 21
June 2020 MS68 population 41 (This represents a 20 coin or 95% increase in less than 7 years, compared to a total of only 21 having been graded the first approximately 27 years.) During the same time period, the MS67 population increased by approximately 44% and the MS66 population increased by approximately 18%.
January 2022 MS68 population 45
June 2023 MS68 population 53
I won't make the points that others have made, but what they haven't said is that most of these top pops, especially anything over $300 in the past few years has a Trueview and we can look through the TV images for those top pops and determine if they actually deserve those grades or not. While it won't be hard to find 1 out of 10 or so that are graded questionably, the challenge I would issue is to find an issue where in the top 10 or top 20 graded trueviews that we identify a significant percentage above that that are overgraded. Again, I posit that ~5% or so are going fall within statistical inevitability of being overgraded, but to prove gradeflation and grade creep, we should see a much higher percentage. Of course, this assessment is impossible to do objectively. But I know when I'm perusing the top pop (and even non top-pops), the problem doesn't seem to be that prevalent and the grades seem fairly consistent, the best I can tell from the images.
This has been noted but, crackouts and resubmissions have the Pop Reports so screwed up it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from hard data.
Anecdotally, the move toward market-grading accounts for some gradeflation.
The move to market grading was made by Sheldon himself...
I disagree. The Sheldon scale specifically described in words what the details remaining on a coin were for each grade. he called his scale: A QUANTITATIVE SCALE FOR CONDITION. It was a grading guide INCLUDED in the first part of his book, Penny Whimsy.
At the end of the chapter Sheldon included a way to estimate a coins value based on its grade. Something that has continued today.
"Market Grading" values a coin. Since the economic condition of the market changes a coin's value, it's grade is subject to change. Large increases in value over time has caused major changes in grade for many coins.
The Sheldon Scale is very strict. The Archival grading used for internal records at the ANA Authentication Service in Washington and then used at the first coin grading service was based on Sheldon's strict system. Unfortunately, the coin market thrives on wiggle room so a precise, strict grading system that remained constant over time and was unrelated to rarity or value became obsolete.
PS IMO, the first 57 pages of Sheldon's book is one of the things that should be on every collector's reading list.
I posted information right from Sheldon's book. You, me, and any TPGS can interpret them as they wish. Furthermore, I'm not going to post anything negative about any TPGS as that is against the rules.
BTW, you should appreciate the fact that not all information published by experts is correct. I suppose the Vatican Library has actual manuscripts from astronomers proving the Sun orbited the Earth!
@Insider3 said:
I posted information right from Sheldon's book. You, me, and any TPGS can interpret them as they wish. Furthermore, I'm not going to post anything negative about any TPGS as that is against the rules.
BTW, you should appreciate the fact that not all information published by experts is correct. I suppose the Vatican Library has actual manuscripts from astronomers proving the Sun orbited the Earth!
I'm not sure either interpretation is negative. To my mind, there is little doubt that value/appeal has always been part of the equation
PCGS, NGC, CAC, and every other grading company on the planet are commercial operations responding to market demands. There is no regulatory authority that enforces grading standards. Instead, grading standards are set by the consumers of the grading company’s services. CAC exists because they believe a portion of the grading services’ consumer base is unhappy with grading standards. The market will determine whether they are right or not, and whether enough people are seeking a different definition of grading that they will be able to be profitable.
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
@shish said:
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
I question CAC's ability to "maintain standards" long term. CAC benefits from being new and not having millions of coins in the marketplace to compare and complain about. I would think that statistically, if PCGS has a 3-5% "defect" rate that would be world-class and about as good as you can get for a human-driven subjective endeavor. Maybe JA can sharpen that to 2-4% but I would guess his rate is the same in the other direction with under-grading. In fact based on what I've seen, his defect rate might be higher with but on the under-graded side of things.
PCGS has graded over 50M coins which at 5% means there are 2.5M misgraded slabs and at 3% is 1.5M graded coins, and these are the coins that get attention and discussion, not the ~48M properly graded ones. This contributes to public perception that any company but CAC has problems maintaining standards.
Again, all the evidence we need is in the Coinfacts Trueviews. The challenge is for someone to identify a coin number and grade where the grades are really inconsistent. I regularly review and compare TV photos and I have to say that I feel the grades are very consistent. Although it is not uncommon to find one or two that I disagree with, the reality is that I'm not finding more than that. It's always just one or two which is statistically inevitable and of course, there could be factors that make the grade correct and my assessment wrong. So in other words, if gradeflation is real, then someone should be able to say, look at the 19xx nickel/dime/quarter/etc in MS64 and you can see most of the coins in TV are overgraded. I'll wait for that post...
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
Comments
Has anyone come up with a standard definition for “gradeflation”?
Coin Photographer.
"While grading is subjective, that would be an express non-subjective violation of the standard that Unc coins must not have any wear. In my world, that would fall under policy change rather than gradeflation."
It's true that the written standards do say that uncirculated coins have no trace of wear.
However, anyone who has been around knows that this is not accurate.
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
Although a strict definition of gradeflation probably only means the historical grade increases by the TPGs over time for a similar looking coin then in the past, what bothers me more is the clean grading of obvious 'details' coins. Maybe because I do not deal in 5 figure & higher end coins, what mostly amounts to a 1 step bump of grade I can live with. Yes some coins are given a 2+ step bump sometimes, esp when the AU58-MS decision is invoked, and obvious wear/friction should not be given an MS grade. Coins are under and over-graded and all of us have differing grading opinions with there is a GTG. Having consistency would be great but will never happen.
But giving a market acceptable 'clean' grade by the experts on an obviously over-dipped, cleaned, scratched, grafitti coin is totally unacceptable to me. I wouldn't care if submitted 100 times, they should never get a clean grade. Now some will say, learn to grade and with the issues being obvious, know what you're getting and pay accordingly.
But I think giving a clean net-grade cheapens that grade for everyone. Although I could list dozens of examples from the dreck on EBAY, here's a few picked at random in a 2 minute search. Easily not the worse I've seen but when deeply circulated coins are over-dipped I cringe.
Now not wishing to disclose the seller, pick on them or the coin, but the clean grade. To me, this is the worst gradeflation issue since I would think these got bodybagged 20 years ago.
@shish
Inserting another grade into the grading scale, say between XF and MS, not really gradeflation.
Trick question. It was already done long ago. The grade was AU and the coins that filled that grade were mostly former XF's. I call that "gradeflation."
See "cabinet friction"
There are countless ways in which grading could be loosened (or to be fair, tightened). The “standards” for each numerical between 60 and 69 lend themselves to subjective distinctions between contiguous grades and less consistency than most of us would like.
My guess is that at various times, there are both conscious and subconscious decisions to tighten or loosen grading. But over time, the available pool of coins increases in grade because the conservatively graded ones tend to get resubmitted, which leads to upgrades. At the same time, far fewer coins go down in grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think the conscious decision of one TPGS to only consider the bottom set of bell lines on a Franklin 50c for a FBL designation rather than both sets is one example.
Re shot coins, yes, and no. People do resubmit these coins more frequently. Occasionally they do upgrade, but I think it's rare. But when someone does get a major upgrade, they usually tell everyone on the planet about it, so some may feel this happens more frequently than it actually does.
Many years ago, I heard one dealer bragging to another that on his 11th try, he got a Seated Dollar upgraded from an MS 64 to an MS 65.
Personally, once -- and only once -- I was looking for a plus on a nice MS 66 coin and it came back MS 67. That is the only major upgrade (and I think it was a gift of some sort) in all of the years I have been collecting coins.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
That's where we have to define gradeflation. My take on the definition from the forum is that it's the inclination of TPGs to grade coins increasingly more generously (or looser) over time. The example of coins getting resubmitted and resulting in higher grades does not fit this definition IMO. I draw the distinction in the actual assignment of grades, not in the resultant population.
How can the process of coins getting resubmitted and receiving higher grades not fit into a definition of grading coins increasingly more generously over time? We’re talking about the very same coins grading one grade, then later, a different/higher grade (and in some cases, grading yet another even higher grade).
Resubmissions are one cause of gradeflation. Another is awarding higher grades to ungraded coins than would have been given for the same coins (or the same quality coins) previously.
I believe that anyone who’s compared the populations of a large number of top pop modern coins over time has zero doubt regarding the reality of gradeflation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Because you're conflating the act of assigning grades with the actual population of inflated coins. If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time, then that is a different phenomena than the tendency of coins to end up in higher graded slabs due to resubmissions.
I think these are important distinctions because some collectors blame the TPGs and think a company like CACG will be immune to the first definition of gradeflation through "strict standards." However, statistically if you resubmit that MS64.8 to CACG enough times it will end up in an MS65 slab. I don't think it's right to describe that phenomena as gradeflation when it is a "feature" (or flaw) due to the subjectivity of grading and TPG policies that basically prevent a downgrade on a regrade.
Maybe. In the case of these top pop modern coins, the pop is either growing because MS(top-1) coins are getting that statistical break upon resubmission or new coins are being crossed over and/or discovered and submitted from millions of unopened rolls and mint and proof sets, not because the graders at your favorite TPG have loosened their standards.
Edited to add:
I think it might make sense to coin a term for the phenomena of "tendency of coins to end up in higher graded slabs due to resubmissions." Something like "grade creep" might be a good term for this. To me, "gradeflation" implies a flaw in the process of assigning a grade, while "grade creep" describes the tendency and ability for a coin to creep up in grade with multiple evaluation attempts
Of course, but the definition has changed over the years.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If it didn't affect what was an XF and what was/is and UNC, then I would not call this gradeflation. This is a recalibration because the existing grades were never inflated.
** If gradeflation is the tendency of graders (or grading companies) to loosen standards and award higher grades over time,**
This is not how we are defining it. TPGs grade to the current standards. The TPGs aren't changing the standards, the market, driven by breakouts, are resulting in the average grades rising for the coins holdered coins. The market redefined the grades and the TPGs just grade to the newer, more lax standards.
And, yes, I remember when a VF Buffalo had to have a full horn and a full "Liberty" was required for a fine in several series (IHC, Barbers). Seeing the evolution of TPG grading from INS and ANA in the 1970s to today really gives one a valuable perspective that I don't think that more recent observers, who maybe only witnessed the last decade or two, are able to appreciate.
You just completely contradicted yourself.
The market didn’t redefine the grades - that would be impossible without participation from the TPG’s. And it appears that over time, the grading companies have either adopted more lax standards (or interpreted whatever the existing ones were, more liberally).
Below is just one from among many possible examples to show how populations of top pop/high grade coins have soared. I didn’t cherry-pick it to try to make a point - it was the first one I came across. And I don’t think the numbers are just due to the passage of time/more submissions or regrades.
This is data for a PCGS MS68 1936-D Columbia commemorative half dollar.
August 2013 MS68 population 21
June 2020 MS68 population 41 (This represents a 20 coin or 95% increase in less than 7 years, compared to a total of only 21 having been graded the first approximately 27 years.) During the same time period, the MS67 population increased by approximately 44% and the MS66 population increased by approximately 18%.
January 2022 MS68 population 45
June 2023 MS68 population 53
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Gradeflation inflation?
It's like pornography...you know it when you see it !!
Seriously....you've had some famous (infamous ?) threads, including here, talk about folks submitting coins and not being able to get an upgrade....then someone else does it and VOILA....next higher grade, sometimes 1 1/2 grades higher, and even a CAC sticker. It can be frustrating, I guess, to see someone else get the jump that catapaults the coin to 5-10X higher in value, while you re-submitted 2 or 3 times and got nowhere.
And this isn't jumping in the AU-50's....it's in the MS-60's (at least from the threads I have seen).
Sometimes the value of a coin 20 years ago wasn't worth submitting so top pops were lower. Once the price increases more coins come out of the woodwork and get submitted which in turn means more top pop coins come to light. There are many more silver Roosevelt dimes slabbed now a days then there were 20 or 30 years ago. A long time ago when I built my Roosie set most of the coins graded MS67 were tough to come by yet most were only $20 coins. The 68's were especially tough to come by yet still were relatively cheap. There are many multiples more in 67 now and higher 68 pops mainly due to more submissions as they became worth the cost of slabbing.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
See the chart below and prices during the past 30+ years. I think it at least partially contradicts your explanation.
https://www.pcgs.com/prices/coin-index/pcgs3000
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld I'm not sure how the chart partially contradicts what I stated. Rare coins are different and would expect top pops on those to remain relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. Unless there was some rare coin discovery which changed it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
The chart shows that overall, prices haven’t gone up that much during the past 30 years, so there wouldn’t necessarily be that many more top pop coins worth submitting.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’ve heard it described as “the tendency of grades to become higher and as years go on due to overgrading.”
But it could easily be described as “the tendency for grades to become higher over the years to correct for rampant undergrading the years before.”
Who’s to say the say the first is more correct than the second? Perhaps the OP had a point here.
Coin Photographer.
The PCGS 3000 Index was elevated by a few sectors that had bubbles (commemoratives drove it during the 1980's).
Gumby is correct that it probably took about 10-15 years (circa 2000) for established pops to develop. From there, both gradeflation....the backlog of older grading inquiries...and new submissions....gradually increased the total pops. For some coins, the top pops barely budged but for others -- including the Small Denomination U.S. Coins many of you collect -- if you chased a pricey coin, you could be down a ton of $$$ a few years later as the pop census went from 5 or 7 to 10 or 12. Demand can fall off a cliff if a certain buyer (one with lots of $$$) is no longer there to mop up excess supply.
The 1995-W ASE DCAM PR70's and even 69's are a good example as the supply there continues to increase and there aren't many buyers for the former at ~ $12,000 or so and a few more bump up the pop totals every year.
I’ll give you both the 10-15 years (circa 2000) for pops to have developed. But, guess what, this is 2024 😉and there have been dramatic increases for many coins at the upper end of the grading scale since 2000, and even since 2010.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This has been noted but, crackouts and resubmissions have the Pop Reports so screwed up it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from hard data.
Anecdotally, the move toward market-grading accounts for some gradeflation.
Gradeflation inflation?> @VanHalen said:
The move to market grading was made by Sheldon himself...
I don't think top pops are the place to look. We had one case a few years ago where a top pop Liberty nickel had a pop of 10 or 12 but most of those were the same coin that had been submitted numerous times trying to get a +.
There was also a relatively large group of 1912-D(?) Liberty nickels which surfaced several years ago and skewed the upper end of the population rather dramatically. But both your example and mine are largely bedside the point.
I research coin values on a daily basis. And on a great many occasions, I’ve noticed that the populations of higher grade coins - largely moderns - have jumped significantly. I don’t know how many of them are due to regrades, resubmissions or new-to-market coins. And sure, some of them were likely graded too low, previously and ended up at more deserving grades. Regardless, I have no doubt that over time, I’ve been seeing gradeflation at work.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If there isn't money to be made by market acceptable grading, there won't be gradeflation.
Can't the same coin be in the Pop Report 10 times if it's resubmited 10 times looking for a higher grade (crack out)?
My favorite examples of this are the PanPac $50s. Population of over 1000....and a mintage of 645.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I'm not arguing against it. I'm just not sure that is the place to look for evidence.
That scenario would result in the coin being counted in the pop report 11 times, not 10.😉 But in answer to your question, yes , if the coin’s cracked out each time and the old grading labels aren’t turned in.
But it ignores all of the other coins for which that doesn’t occur. And then there are the many instances of the same coin being seen in a holder at one grade level, then later in a holder at one or more higher grades.
After this post and the other one to which I just replied, I’m done beating the poor dead (gradeflation) horse.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t go looking for the evidence. It comes to me while I’m doing my research.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Any thoughts on the possibility the TPG's relaxed the standards to promote resubmissions and crackouts. After all, if a coin is graded the 1st time around and unless seriously undergraded , very little chance of getting an upgrade based on the standards in place at the outset of the TPG's. I wonder what the % of their business is crack outs, regrades and reconsiderations.
Add over a long period of time. Otherwise the definition is flawed because of the tight/loose changes due to economic conditions that affect the commercial coin market.
I disagree. The Sheldon scale specifically described in words what the details remaining on a coin were for each grade. he called his scale: A QUANTITATIVE SCALE FOR CONDITION. It was a grading guide INCLUDED in the first part of his book, Penny Whimsy.
At the end of the chapter Sheldon included a way to estimate a coins value based on its grade. Something that has continued today.
"Market Grading" values a coin. Since the economic condition of the market changes a coin's value, it's grade is subject to change. Large increases in value over time has caused major changes in grade for many coins.
The Sheldon Scale is very strict. The Archival grading used for internal records at the ANA Authentication Service in Washington and then used at the first coin grading service was based on Sheldon's strict system. Unfortunately, the coin market thrives on wiggle room so a precise, strict grading system that remained constant over time and was unrelated to rarity or value became obsolete.
PS IMO, the first 57 pages of Sheldon's book is one of the things that should be on every collector's reading list.
Now that I've thrown a grenade into this thread, I shall retire.
I won't make the points that others have made, but what they haven't said is that most of these top pops, especially anything over $300 in the past few years has a Trueview and we can look through the TV images for those top pops and determine if they actually deserve those grades or not. While it won't be hard to find 1 out of 10 or so that are graded questionably, the challenge I would issue is to find an issue where in the top 10 or top 20 graded trueviews that we identify a significant percentage above that that are overgraded. Again, I posit that ~5% or so are going fall within statistical inevitability of being overgraded, but to prove gradeflation and grade creep, we should see a much higher percentage. Of course, this assessment is impossible to do objectively. But I know when I'm perusing the top pop (and even non top-pops), the problem doesn't seem to be that prevalent and the grades seem fairly consistent, the best I can tell from the images.
I posted information right from Sheldon's book. You, me, and any TPGS can interpret them as they wish. Furthermore, I'm not going to post anything negative about any TPGS as that is against the rules.
BTW, you should appreciate the fact that not all information published by experts is correct. I suppose the Vatican Library has actual manuscripts from astronomers proving the Sun orbited the Earth!
I'm not sure either interpretation is negative. To my mind, there is little doubt that value/appeal has always been part of the equation
PCGS, NGC, CAC, and every other grading company on the planet are commercial operations responding to market demands. There is no regulatory authority that enforces grading standards. Instead, grading standards are set by the consumers of the grading company’s services. CAC exists because they believe a portion of the grading services’ consumer base is unhappy with grading standards. The market will determine whether they are right or not, and whether enough people are seeking a different definition of grading that they will be able to be profitable.
Grade inflation? Based on who, where, when, what, why? It’s more YMMV IMO - some coins nice, some not based on consumer taste.
Much, if not most of that has been posted at length, already. But it would require reading, so it probably wouldn't be for you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
I question CAC's ability to "maintain standards" long term. CAC benefits from being new and not having millions of coins in the marketplace to compare and complain about. I would think that statistically, if PCGS has a 3-5% "defect" rate that would be world-class and about as good as you can get for a human-driven subjective endeavor. Maybe JA can sharpen that to 2-4% but I would guess his rate is the same in the other direction with under-grading. In fact based on what I've seen, his defect rate might be higher with but on the under-graded side of things.
PCGS has graded over 50M coins which at 5% means there are 2.5M misgraded slabs and at 3% is 1.5M graded coins, and these are the coins that get attention and discussion, not the ~48M properly graded ones. This contributes to public perception that any company but CAC has problems maintaining standards.
Again, all the evidence we need is in the Coinfacts Trueviews. The challenge is for someone to identify a coin number and grade where the grades are really inconsistent. I regularly review and compare TV photos and I have to say that I feel the grades are very consistent. Although it is not uncommon to find one or two that I disagree with, the reality is that I'm not finding more than that. It's always just one or two which is statistically inevitable and of course, there could be factors that make the grade correct and my assessment wrong. So in other words, if gradeflation is real, then someone should be able to say, look at the 19xx nickel/dime/quarter/etc in MS64 and you can see most of the coins in TV are overgraded. I'll wait for that post...
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.