@Cougar1978 said:
Have to Rolf at this thread. Do you want good grades or the lowest?
I remember a Frat guy advised Jim years ago as far as corp finance prof Parrish was the toughest (2/3 D and F) , Lewis midrange, Jamieson easiest. Jim rushed over to Finance dept table got Jamieson (last seat available, thanking his lucky stars). Got a B under Jamieson.
Have to Rolf at this post. You realize we don't know any of these people? We also don't know either of your lovely assistants, neither Monique nor Frencesca.
For those not in the know, ROLF=Rolling On Laughing Floor. Because of course it does.
@124Spider said:
I agree that CACG is the most "conservative." I don't agree that this is "best."
When buying, I will pay a premium for a CAC sticker, and I would pay a premium for a CACG-holdered coin, all else being equal, compared to any other TPG.
But, unlike the more orthodox folks here, I am a fan of so-called "market grading," since I think it's the market's job to decide how bad is bad enough for "details" purgatory, not a TPG's job. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would cause me to send a coin into CACG for grading.
Market grading has nothing to do with the market deciding to accept or not detail coins. In fact, market grading has nothing to do with the market at all, market grading is all about gradeflation.
Acknowledging that I could be wrong, I have the sense that "market grading" includes allowing old, gentle, non-obvious cleanings to be straight-graded (at least relating to expensive coins). That, to me, is the equivalent of acknowledging that the market does not want those coins to be consigned to purgatory.
Depends on who you talk to, what you are describing is net grading and is not what I call market grading. Net grading has been around a long time; however, I also dislike net grading, here is why. What I want and expect from a TPG is for the graders to grade a coin biased on the surface preservation of the coin when compared to a reasonable industry standard of grading, for myself that standard is the ANA grading guide. If a coin has been cleaned or in some way the surfaces have been messed with, I don't want that coin to receive a lower straight grade just call it what it is. The same for color, I don't want one or two graders to decide what a coin should be priced at just because they like the color and thus up the grade by one or more points. It should be up to the market (that is the buyers) to decide how much to penalize or reward the value of a coin biased on the severity of the surface damage or the extra eye appeal as each collector sees it.
By having only one or two graders make the call on either net grading or market (maybe better if it was called eye appeal) grading, you are in fact eliminating the voice of the market. The whole point behind TPG grading was to facilitate sight unseen and internet trading/selling/buying of coins. How can you trust a TPG grade when the TPG is not being honest with the grade by net grading or by bumping the grade just because someone liked it. When you take the voice of the market out of the equation you have a manipulated market.
And just some food for thought, where do the graders come from, do they come from the buyer (collector) pool or do they come from the seller (dealer) pool. Overwhelmingly graders come from the seller pool, and who benefits from higher grades through gradeflation and making coins that have issues more saleable by net grading? I'll let you answer that.
TPG's have had a net positive impact on the hobby, but that doesn't mean that there are areas that have not been abused or manipulated along the way. For me CACG is trying to turn the clock back some and be more like what the TPG's started out as, I see this as a good thing.
@Cougar1978 said:
Yawn - Do you even collect coins? My post Above - it’s called survival of the fittest on Planet Earth. No I am not going to spend my money on the guy who gives the lowest grades. Do u sit by the keyboard (stalk) looking who to bash. Boring.
I've posted many of my coins here and every single one of my posts has links to my sets below. You have only ever shown a Mexico Libertad along with your daydreams about the bourse.
Survival of the fittest? It's absurd delusions. Which is 99% of what you post. All you do is brag about your disdain for your clients and give inane dealing advice to random collectors who are not asking for it or discussing it.
EDIT: Also, you edit every single post multiple times and make up imaginary assistants to fantasize about. Who is sitting by the keyboard all day?
@Cougar1978 said:
Yawn - Do you even collect coins? My post Above - it’s called survival of the fittest on Planet Earth. No I am not going to spend my money on the guy who gives the lowest grades. Do u sit by the keyboard (stalk) looking who to bash. Boring.
I've posted many of my coins here and every single one of my posts has links to my sets below. You have only ever shown a Mexico Libertad along with your daydreams about the bourse.
Survival of the fittest? It's absurd delusions. Which is 99% of what you post. All you do is brag about your disdain for your clients and give inane dealing advice to random collectors who are not asking for it or discussing it.
EDIT: Also, you edit every single post multiple times and make up imaginary assistants to fantasize about. Who is sitting by the keyboard all day?
Not even worth talking to him @lermish - he still can't prove he owns a coin.
@Cougar1978 said:
Yawn - Do you even collect coins? My post Above - it’s called survival of the fittest on Planet Earth. No I am not going to spend my money on the guy who gives the lowest grades. Do u sit by the keyboard (stalk) looking who to bash. Boring.
Yawn, this is the U.S. Coins forum, not the How to Get Better Grades in Class forum.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Before sending a coin anywhere, the more you know what the current graders are looking for in the grade range you are expecting, the better. I try to submit as little as possible. I'll leave it there.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
First, I enjoy coins and the hunt for coins that appeal to me.
Second, I enjoy the stories behind the coins that I like (history, art, society, politics, manufacturing processes, etc.).
Third, I enjoy seeing the hobby operate and function on a daily basis, including obtaining information on hobby goings on through my participation on the Forums. Forum threads and the comments/photos posted to same are fascinating, as they cover a wide range of topics and reveal what individual (and group) hobby participants think, believe and feel about the hobby in general and about specific topics contained within the hobby. Forum give and take (some intellectual based upon education, knowledge and experience; and some emotional based upon a wide range of beliefs and feelings) can be informative, educational, entertaining, exasperating, annoying, frustrating, shocking, uplifting and depressing (sometimes many of these at the same time).
When it comes to coin grading, whether it be adjectival (poor, fair, good, fine, etc.) or numerical (the Sheldon scale of 1-70), by hobby participants viewing/assessing raw coins, or by formalized grading and slabbing by TPGs, the only constant is:
A coin's grade is a matter of subjective opinion assigned by a person (or persons) at a certain point in time [a
single data point].
No matter how such a grade opinion is dressed up and presented (raw, in a cardboard 2 by 2, or in a sealed slab issued by a TPG) the grade is still only an opinion.
Opinions by different persons, by the same person and by the time/date it is given/awarded to a coin. There is no subjective standard from which a given coin's state of preservation (grade) can be determined.
Unless and until there is created (by humans?; or by AI?; or by a deity; or even by earth mother, Gaea, Gaia, Ge, Great Mother, Magna Mater, mother goddess or Tellus terra?) an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's TRUE GRADE (Yeah, right!!!!! ) there will never be consensus about a given coin's state of preservation.
Even if there is ever created an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's grade, after it is implemented with seconds or minutes hobbyists will take up pitch forks in protest and march to the keep of those who created the objective standard in order to topple same (because these hobbyists do not agree with the grade assigned objectively to the given coin).
Can you imagine the hobby existing in world where an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's grade exists and applies across the board?
I think such a hobby would be less exciting, entertaining and rewarding due to the fact that subjective grade opinions no longer exist. Debate over whether a coin is or is not correctly graded would be missing; and for me some of the entertaining and fun aspects of the hobby would no longer be present.
As I read this thread and the comments posted herein, I appreciate how much I like the current status quo (namely that a given coin's grade is a matter of subjective opinion).
When and if a forum member is able to use his or her knowledge, experience, intellect and brains to push coin grading over the line between subjective opinion and objective opinion, that person should be both praised and cursed.
Until what I described in the paragraph immediately above this one happens, I merely enjoy the debate contained in threads such as this. Carry on until a solution to the problem (alleged) of subjective grade opinions is reached.
@124Spider said:
I agree that CACG is the most "conservative." I don't agree that this is "best."
When buying, I will pay a premium for a CAC sticker, and I would pay a premium for a CACG-holdered coin, all else being equal, compared to any other TPG.
But, unlike the more orthodox folks here, I am a fan of so-called "market grading," since I think it's the market's job to decide how bad is bad enough for "details" purgatory, not a TPG's job. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would cause me to send a coin into CACG for grading.
Market grading has nothing to do with the market deciding to accept or not detail coins. In fact, market grading has nothing to do with the market at all, market grading is all about gradeflation.
Acknowledging that I could be wrong, I have the sense that "market grading" includes allowing old, gentle, non-obvious cleanings to be straight-graded (at least relating to expensive coins). That, to me, is the equivalent of acknowledging that the market does not want those coins to be consigned to purgatory.
Depends on who you talk to, what you are describing is net grading and is not what I call market grading. Net grading has been around a long time; however, I also dislike net grading, here is why. What I want and expect from a TPG is for the graders to grade a coin biased on the surface preservation of the coin when compared to a reasonable industry standard of grading, for myself that standard is the ANA grading guide. If a coin has been cleaned or in some way the surfaces have been messed with, I don't want that coin to receive a lower straight grade just call it what it is. The same for color, I don't want one or two graders to decide what a coin should be priced at just because they like the color and thus up the grade by one or more points. It should be up to the market (that is the buyers) to decide how much to penalize or reward the value of a coin biased on the severity of the surface damage or the extra eye appeal as each collector sees it.
By having only one or two graders make the call on either net grading or market (maybe better if it was called eye appeal) grading, you are in fact eliminating the voice of the market. The whole point behind TPG grading was to facilitate sight unseen and internet trading/selling/buying of coins. How can you trust a TPG grade when the TPG is not being honest with the grade by net grading or by bumping the grade just because someone liked it. When you take the voice of the market out of the equation you have a manipulated market.
And just some food for thought, where do the graders come from, do they come from the buyer (collector) pool or do they come from the seller (dealer) pool. Overwhelmingly graders come from the seller pool, and who benefits from higher grades through gradeflation and making coins that have issues more saleable by net grading? I'll let you answer that.
TPG's have had a net positive impact on the hobby, but that doesn't mean that there are areas that have not been abused or manipulated along the way. For me CACG is trying to turn the clock back some and be more like what the TPG's started out as, I see this as a good thing.
Thanks for this! Yes, I really mean it; just because I don't agree with everything you say doesn't affect that, because I appreciate you point of view and your expertise.
My disagreement is around the fact that a "details" grade consigns a coin to the basement, regardless of what the coin actually looks like. Forever. And I don't think that's reasonable, for a coin that it takes an expert even to see that it has been cleaned sometime in the past (or some other minor form of leprosy).
I don't believe that a TPG should be considering eye appeal much in grading, beyond the aforesaid (if the leprosy is evident only on expert examination, don't kill the coin; maybe bring it down a grade or two). Eye appeal is largely in the eyes of the beholder (for instance, I detest most "toning," but I acknowledge that much of the market loves it; but eye appeal is easy for a potential buyer to decide for himself/herself.
I am sure there are players converting or attempting convert straight graded CACG somewhere else get grade bump up. Of course the higher the bump up value the more that target pursued. It may not be exceptionally big ticket but it’s the pct bump up value. With all the details CACG seen in auc are many those failures somebody tried cross straight?
@Cougar1978 said:
Have to Rolf at this thread. Do you want good grades or the lowest?
I remember a Frat guy advised Jim years ago as far as corp finance prof Parrish was the toughest (2/3 D and F) , Lewis midrange, Jamieson easiest. Jim rushed over to Finance dept table got Jamieson (last seat available, thanking his lucky stars). Got a B under Jamieson.
Have to Rolf at this post. You realize we don't know any of these people? We also don't know either of your lovely assistants, neither Monique nor Frencesca.
For those not in the know, ROLF=Rolling On Laughing Floor. Because of course it does.
Wow. Had no idea there was SO much passion on the issue. I'm glad I posed the query. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. They all have helped edumacate me to some extent.:)
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
As with many things in life, there is a bell curve of performance against the TPG standard (the apex of the curve). Deviation from the standard will naturally occur. Ideally, between major TPGs, there is a generally understood standard by coin series that is shared between TPGs more often than not.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@allnewsanchor said:
Wow. Had no idea there was SO much passion on the issue. I'm glad I posed the query. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. They all have helped edumacate me to some extent.:)
“to some extent”. Yes, absolutely. Nothing really wrong with any of the posts by themselves but your thread went off the rails somewhat. JMO
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
And that was my point. It's futile to compare the different company's standards. Does it really matter is one uses a metric ruler and the other uses SAE? Why is it so important that all TPGs assign the same grade number when they all have different standards? Why is it meaningful for a CACG 64 to be a PCGS 65? It isn't. They are based on different standards.
I know you don't like that analogy but it works perfect. A coin grade is a measurement of the 3 qualities (surface, strike, luster/eye appeal) and a ruler measures length. If PCGS had it's own rule that measures my pen to be 6 units long and NGC has a ruler that measures the same pen to be 5.8 units long, one is not stricter, better, tighter, looser, or worse than the other. When I tell you the NGC measurement, you just multiply by 1.03525 if you want to think about it in PCGS terms. And when someone asks which one is tougher the only response that makes sense is they are different rulers and cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Sure, people might use this for marketing and say that their pens are better because they are 6 PCGS units long, but the smart consumer knows that the 5.8 unit NGC pen offers the same value. Please humor the scenario where pens are sold and valued based on length.
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
And that was my point. It's futile to compare the different company's standards. Does it really matter is one uses a metric ruler and the other uses SAE? Why is it so important that all TPGs assign the same grade number when they all have different standards? Why is it meaningful for a CACG 64 to be a PCGS 65? It isn't. They are based on different standards.
I know you don't like that analogy but it works perfect. A coin grade is a measurement of the 3 qualities (surface, strike, luster/eye appeal) and a ruler measures length. If PCGS had it's own rule that measures my pen to be 6 units long and NGC has a ruler that measures the same pen to be 5.8 units long, one is not stricter, better, tighter, looser, or worse than the other. When I tell you the NGC measurement, you just multiply by 1.03525 if you want to think about it in PCGS terms. And when someone asks which one is tougher the only response that makes sense is they are different rulers and cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Sure, people might use this for marketing and say that their pens are better because they are 6 PCGS units long, but the smart consumer knows that the 5.8 unit NGC pen offers the same value. Please humor the scenario where pens are sold and valued based on length.
We agree on something - different grading companies have different standards. Where we disagree is with respect to whether it's futile to compare those different standards and what the comparisons show.
Most everyone who's commented on this subject in this and other threads believes that CACG's standards are tougher/more conservative/stricter than those of the other grading companies. You're free to disagree or believe that there's no way to make such a determination.
And your ruler analogy still falls (pun intended) way short.
Now, you'll have to carry on without me in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
And that was my point. It's futile to compare the different company's standards. Does it really matter is one uses a metric ruler and the other uses SAE? Why is it so important that all TPGs assign the same grade number when they all have different standards? Why is it meaningful for a CACG 64 to be a PCGS 65? It isn't. They are based on different standards.
I know you don't like that analogy but it works perfect. A coin grade is a measurement of the 3 qualities (surface, strike, luster/eye appeal) and a ruler measures length. If PCGS had it's own rule that measures my pen to be 6 units long and NGC has a ruler that measures the same pen to be 5.8 units long, one is not stricter, better, tighter, looser, or worse than the other. When I tell you the NGC measurement, you just multiply by 1.03525 if you want to think about it in PCGS terms. And when someone asks which one is tougher the only response that makes sense is they are different rulers and cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Sure, people might use this for marketing and say that their pens are better because they are 6 PCGS units long, but the smart consumer knows that the 5.8 unit NGC pen offers the same value. Please humor the scenario where pens are sold and valued based on length.
You have left something out. The CACG ruler! That ruler measures your pen as 4 units long. Therefore, I think most posters here would agree that CACG is the toughest service. They are trying to turn back the clock to a standard long past.
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."
Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.
The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.
Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.
I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."
The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.
I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.
Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?
@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?
I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.
The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.
Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.
As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.
You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.
The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.
That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.
The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.
Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.
And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
And that was my point. It's futile to compare the different company's standards. Does it really matter is one uses a metric ruler and the other uses SAE? Why is it so important that all TPGs assign the same grade number when they all have different standards? Why is it meaningful for a CACG 64 to be a PCGS 65? It isn't. They are based on different standards.
I know you don't like that analogy but it works perfect. A coin grade is a measurement of the 3 qualities (surface, strike, luster/eye appeal) and a ruler measures length. If PCGS had it's own rule that measures my pen to be 6 units long and NGC has a ruler that measures the same pen to be 5.8 units long, one is not stricter, better, tighter, looser, or worse than the other. When I tell you the NGC measurement, you just multiply by 1.03525 if you want to think about it in PCGS terms. And when someone asks which one is tougher the only response that makes sense is they are different rulers and cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Sure, people might use this for marketing and say that their pens are better because they are 6 PCGS units long, but the smart consumer knows that the 5.8 unit NGC pen offers the same value. Please humor the scenario where pens are sold and valued based on length.
You have left something out. The CACG ruler! That ruler measures your pen as 4 units long. Therefore, I think most posters here would agree that CACG is the toughest service. They are trying to turn back the clock to a standard long past.
You missed the entire point. I will try one more time.
In order to measure strictness you need a universal golden standard. For example, the standard of a meter is the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. If you have a ruler and I have a ruler, the "strictest" ruler is that one that is closest to that standard.
To debate which TPG is the strictest, you have to define a golden or universal standard you're comparing to. Is it the ANA standard? Or your own? Or something else? As stated and agreed upon, each TPG has their own standard. To debate which one is the strictest you have to define the standard you are comparing to, and no one here has specified that. Instead the forum members tend to go by the TPG that issues the lowest numbers, but that doesn't measure strictness at all because it's possible that the numbers can be too low. Your ruler can measure a bit long and mine a bit short. That doesn't mean one is better than the other as long as you know what you're getting when you buy a meter of something from my store or your store. Presumably, if I charge proportionally less for my meter of product compared to yours, it's the same value.
Whatever. You can keep deceiving yourself and others all you wish. The simple fact is this: PCGS came about because the grading services at that time were too strict. I don't know the actual reason NGC was started. After several decades, CAC came along because NGC and PCGS had become too loose! CACG is a spin off of that company.
Do you really believe CACG is going to start off less strict than CAC was? All I hear are complaints about how tough and unrealistic they grade.
Now throw away the ruler stuff and stick to examples about the grading services as I have done here. What do you disagree with in this post?
PS As you stated, there is no grading standard! A standard does not change with the passage of time or increases of value. Additionally, all of us are different. A twenty year old kid grading a silver eagle in a few seconds using his/her eyes alone is not going to have the same opinion all of the time as the collector who buys it and sticks a 10X magnifier on it. IMO, TPGS are a crutch that offer some degree of protection to the ignorant collector while keeping us more safe from counterfeits. I'll buy coins from any TPGS including the shady ones, but I'll never send a coin to any of them!
Well played Yos..
Although I find that in some cases, we actually have Tuffer Tuff than Smith right here in the bay area.. (rock tuffness, not grades to be clear..)
@Married2Coins said:
Whatever. You can keep deceiving yourself and others all you wish. The simple fact is this: PCGS came about because the grading services at that time were too strict. I don't know the actual reason NGC was started. After several decades, CAC came along because NGC and PCGS had become too loose! CACG is a spin off of that company.
Do you really believe CACG is going to start off less strict than CAC was? All I hear are complaints about how tough and unrealistic they grade.
Now throw away the ruler stuff and stick to examples about the grading services as I have done here. What do you disagree with in this post?
"Strict" is a comparative term. One thing is strict relative to another. No one here has stated the standard they are comparing the "strictness" to. It's like saying my shoe is longer. This statement is meaningless. Longer than what? Longer than my kid's shoe for sure. Not as long as Shaq's shoe. See how that works? It only becomes meaningful when you say what you're comparing it to.
PS As you stated, there is no grading standard! A standard does not change with the passage of time or increases of value. Additionally, all of us are different. A twenty year old kid grading a silver eagle in a few seconds using his/her eyes alone is not going to have the same opinion all of the time as the collector who buys it and sticks a 10X magnifier on it. IMO, TPGS are a crutch that offer some degree of protection to the ignorant collector while keeping us more safe from counterfeits. I'll buy coins from any TPGS including the shady ones, but I'll never send a coin to any of them!
I did not say there was no standard. The ANA standard is one grading standard, Ruddy Photograde is another, etc. Each TPG has their own standard. You can compare standards. But you can't be strict relative to nothing. Is CAC strict to the PCGS standard? No of course not, but it is a meaningless comparison because they do not claim to use the same standards and are not trying to be PCGS. Are they strict to the ANA standard and who comes closest? That's something we can debate. But no one here will even say what standards they are comparing. Instead there is a fallacy that low numbers = strict when that's not how you measure strictness.
One standard is not better than another. There is probably one TPG's standard that comes closest to the ANA standard but does that make it the best standard? That's kind of a personal choice. Or can we just recognize that each standard is different and collect, buy, and sell accordingly?
So back to the OP question, which TPG is the toughest? Toughest relative to what?
Edited to add:
In this context, I could easily argue that CACG is the least strict to the ANA grading standard because by policy (by CACG standard) they ignore the bottom ~1/3 of each grade and assign it one point lower. I'm not sure it's even valid to compare the "limited spectrum" or "down rounding" standard used by CACG to a full spectrum TPG like PCGS or NGC.
Well played Yos..
Although I find that in some cases, we actually have Tuffer Tuff than Smith right here in the bay area.. (rock tuffness, not grades to be clear..)
Mt. St. Helena? I've never climbed there; heard it is soft in places. (So is Smith Rock, in places).
Grading has a subjective component and always will. TPG offers a snapshot opinion captured at the time of encapsulation. And with any opinion, the opinion can change over time. And some opinions are better than others. What is tough (tuff), conservative and strict is really a sideshow that serves more as a distraction than adding numismatic value. And rarely do those terms define what is the best outcome/opinion in connection with what matters the most- the real essence and DNA of the coin itself.
As time passes, a coin really should remain constant and not change…unless it is exposed to unforeseen elements. However, the opinions of a coin easily can change depending on rarity and other factors. Tough, strict or conservative are not terms at the forefront that shape grading opinions… instead they are used as terms to shape expectations. And expectations might be the subject of a different thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Never mind. I looked 'em up. I guessed the grade and it was exactly what our host graded it. CACG's grade was (dare I say it as the OP of this fascinating thread) too tuff.
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
I hope your “troll” comment wasn’t in reference to the thread originator. If so, I think you’re way off base.
Lol I think your way off base. Big time.
That’s pretty funny, considering how much you post, without bothering to pay attention to what others have written. Why don’t you tell us what threads and comments from @JCH22 have lead you to believe he’s a troll. Yeah, I know, as you’ve written before, you don’t have to explain anything you say here - lucky for you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You have it backwards Feld. I liked JCH comment. I do believe there are about 4 people in here who stalk, quote, target, bash others. Keyboard warriors. If one plays GTAO the equivalent there was KDR warriors in free roam. However KDR points in freeroam (public lobby) was nerfed over a year ago. Now only in deathmatch related jobs one can get KDR points.
@Cougar1978 said:
You have it backwards Feld. I liked JCH comment. I do believe there are about 4 people in here who stalk, quote, target, bash others. Keyboard warriors. A friend who plays GTAO says the equivalent there is KDR warriors.
Why is quoting bad? Because it memorializes your quote so you can't change it multiple times?
I have to assume I am one of the people you are referencing here. I'll make you a deal. When you show any evidence of either having read other peoples' posts OR you make a post that is actually relevant to the topic at hand, I won't quote you. That's all any of us have ever wanted.
But, when you make ridiculous and inane posts, make ludicrous references and analogies, and completely ignore the existence of every other post in the thread, including your own, I can't stop myself from pointing out the absurdity. I guess you can call me Camus.
@Married2Coins said:
Whatever. You can keep deceiving yourself and others all you wish. The simple fact is this: PCGS came about because the grading services at that time were too strict. I don't know the actual reason NGC was started. After several decades, CAC came along because NGC and PCGS had become too loose! CACG is a spin off of that company.
Do you really believe CACG is going to start off less strict than CAC was? All I hear are complaints about how tough and unrealistic they grade.
Now throw away the ruler stuff and stick to examples about the grading services as I have done here. What do you disagree with in this post?
"Strict" is a comparative term. One thing is strict relative to another. No one here has stated the standard they are comparing the "strictness" to. It's like saying my shoe is longer. This statement is meaningless. Longer than what? Longer than my kid's shoe for sure. Not as long as Shaq's shoe. See how that works? It only becomes meaningful when you say what you're comparing it to.
PS As you stated, there is no grading standard! A standard does not change with the passage of time or increases of value. Additionally, all of us are different. A twenty year old kid grading a silver eagle in a few seconds using his/her eyes alone is not going to have the same opinion all of the time as the collector who buys it and sticks a 10X magnifier on it. IMO, TPGS are a crutch that offer some degree of protection to the ignorant collector while keeping us more safe from counterfeits. I'll buy coins from any TPGS including the shady ones, but I'll never send a coin to any of them!
I did not say there was no standard. The ANA standard is one grading standard, Ruddy Photograde is another, etc. Each TPG has their own standard. You can compare standards. But you can't be strict relative to nothing. Is CAC strict to the PCGS standard? No of course not, but it is a meaningless comparison because they do not claim to use the same standards and are not trying to be PCGS. Are they strict to the ANA standard and who comes closest? That's something we can debate. But no one here will even say what standards they are comparing. Instead there is a fallacy that low numbers = strict when that's not how you measure strictness.
One standard is not better than another. There is probably one TPG's standard that comes closest to the ANA standard but does that make it the best standard? That's kind of a personal choice. Or can we just recognize that each standard is different and collect, buy, and sell accordingly?
So back to the OP question, which TPG is the toughest? Toughest relative to what?
Edited to add:
In this context, I could easily argue that CACG is the least strict to the ANA grading standard because by policy (by CACG standard) they ignore the bottom ~1/3 of each grade and assign it one point lower. I'm not sure it's even valid to compare the "limited spectrum" or "down rounding" standard used by CACG to a full spectrum TPG like PCGS or NGC.
LOL, you win. I am ignorant of the meaning of the word "standard" and the fact that any MAJOR professional coin dealer even looks at the ANA's Grading Standard.
But I can answer this: "So back to the OP question, which TPG is the toughest? Toughest relative to what?"
TOUGHEST RELATIVE TO THE GRADE ASSIGNED BY 90% OF THE COIN DEALERS sending coins to a grading company.
Yes, what were the grades? And before I get an answer I'd like to add that if any one of those two companies graded that coin MS with that much obvious wear, I'd like several of the 5* members to educate me and any others how the TPGS reached that opinion.
Unfortunately, I am not expecting any member to answer this question. So please put your teaching caps on and surprise me.
Comments
Have to Rolf at this post. You realize we don't know any of these people? We also don't know either of your lovely assistants, neither Monique nor Frencesca.
For those not in the know, ROLF=Rolling On Laughing Floor. Because of course it does.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Yawn - Do you even collect coins? Do u sit by the keyboard (stalk) looking who to bash. Boring.
Depends on who you talk to, what you are describing is net grading and is not what I call market grading. Net grading has been around a long time; however, I also dislike net grading, here is why. What I want and expect from a TPG is for the graders to grade a coin biased on the surface preservation of the coin when compared to a reasonable industry standard of grading, for myself that standard is the ANA grading guide. If a coin has been cleaned or in some way the surfaces have been messed with, I don't want that coin to receive a lower straight grade just call it what it is. The same for color, I don't want one or two graders to decide what a coin should be priced at just because they like the color and thus up the grade by one or more points. It should be up to the market (that is the buyers) to decide how much to penalize or reward the value of a coin biased on the severity of the surface damage or the extra eye appeal as each collector sees it.
By having only one or two graders make the call on either net grading or market (maybe better if it was called eye appeal) grading, you are in fact eliminating the voice of the market. The whole point behind TPG grading was to facilitate sight unseen and internet trading/selling/buying of coins. How can you trust a TPG grade when the TPG is not being honest with the grade by net grading or by bumping the grade just because someone liked it. When you take the voice of the market out of the equation you have a manipulated market.
And just some food for thought, where do the graders come from, do they come from the buyer (collector) pool or do they come from the seller (dealer) pool. Overwhelmingly graders come from the seller pool, and who benefits from higher grades through gradeflation and making coins that have issues more saleable by net grading? I'll let you answer that.
TPG's have had a net positive impact on the hobby, but that doesn't mean that there are areas that have not been abused or manipulated along the way. For me CACG is trying to turn the clock back some and be more like what the TPG's started out as, I see this as a good thing.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I've posted many of my coins here and every single one of my posts has links to my sets below. You have only ever shown a Mexico Libertad along with your daydreams about the bourse.
Survival of the fittest? It's absurd delusions. Which is 99% of what you post. All you do is brag about your disdain for your clients and give inane dealing advice to random collectors who are not asking for it or discussing it.
EDIT: Also, you edit every single post multiple times and make up imaginary assistants to fantasize about. Who is sitting by the keyboard all day?
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Not even worth talking to him @lermish - he still can't prove he owns a coin.
Coin Photographer.
Yawn, this is the U.S. Coins forum, not the How to Get Better Grades in Class forum.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thread is a troll. Cougar is an alt.
I hope your “troll” comment wasn’t in reference to the thread originator. If so, I think you’re way off base.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Before sending a coin anywhere, the more you know what the current graders are looking for in the grade range you are expecting, the better. I try to submit as little as possible. I'll leave it there.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I enjoy the hobby for multiple reasons.
First, I enjoy coins and the hunt for coins that appeal to me.
Second, I enjoy the stories behind the coins that I like (history, art, society, politics, manufacturing processes, etc.).
Third, I enjoy seeing the hobby operate and function on a daily basis, including obtaining information on hobby goings on through my participation on the Forums. Forum threads and the comments/photos posted to same are fascinating, as they cover a wide range of topics and reveal what individual (and group) hobby participants think, believe and feel about the hobby in general and about specific topics contained within the hobby. Forum give and take (some intellectual based upon education, knowledge and experience; and some emotional based upon a wide range of beliefs and feelings) can be informative, educational, entertaining, exasperating, annoying, frustrating, shocking, uplifting and depressing (sometimes many of these at the same time).
When it comes to coin grading, whether it be adjectival (poor, fair, good, fine, etc.) or numerical (the Sheldon scale of 1-70), by hobby participants viewing/assessing raw coins, or by formalized grading and slabbing by TPGs, the only constant is:
A coin's grade is a matter of subjective opinion assigned by a person (or persons) at a certain point in time [a single data point].No matter how such a grade opinion is dressed up and presented (raw, in a cardboard 2 by 2, or in a sealed slab issued by a TPG) the grade is still only an opinion.
Opinions by different persons, by the same person and by the time/date it is given/awarded to a coin. There is no subjective standard from which a given coin's state of preservation (grade) can be determined.
Unless and until there is created (by humans?; or by AI?; or by a deity; or even by earth mother, Gaea, Gaia, Ge, Great Mother, Magna Mater, mother goddess or Tellus terra?) an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's TRUE GRADE (Yeah, right!!!!!
) there will never be consensus about a given coin's state of preservation.
Even if there is ever created an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's grade, after it is implemented with seconds or minutes hobbyists will take up pitch forks in protest and march to the keep of those who created the objective standard in order to topple same (because these hobbyists do not agree with the grade assigned objectively to the given coin).
Can you imagine the hobby existing in world where an objective standard that can be used to determine a given coin's grade exists and applies across the board?
I think such a hobby would be less exciting, entertaining and rewarding due to the fact that subjective grade opinions no longer exist. Debate over whether a coin is or is not correctly graded would be missing; and for me some of the entertaining and fun aspects of the hobby would no longer be present.
As I read this thread and the comments posted herein, I appreciate how much I like the current status quo (namely that a given coin's grade is a matter of subjective opinion).
When and if a forum member is able to use his or her knowledge, experience, intellect and brains to push coin grading over the line between subjective opinion and objective opinion, that person should be both praised and cursed.
Until what I described in the paragraph immediately above this one happens, I merely enjoy the debate contained in threads such as this. Carry on until a solution to the problem (alleged) of subjective grade opinions is reached.
Thanks for this! Yes, I really mean it; just because I don't agree with everything you say doesn't affect that, because I appreciate you point of view and your expertise.
My disagreement is around the fact that a "details" grade consigns a coin to the basement, regardless of what the coin actually looks like. Forever. And I don't think that's reasonable, for a coin that it takes an expert even to see that it has been cleaned sometime in the past (or some other minor form of leprosy).
I don't believe that a TPG should be considering eye appeal much in grading, beyond the aforesaid (if the leprosy is evident only on expert examination, don't kill the coin; maybe bring it down a grade or two). Eye appeal is largely in the eyes of the beholder (for instance, I detest most "toning," but I acknowledge that much of the market loves it; but eye appeal is easy for a potential buyer to decide for himself/herself.
I am sure there are players converting or attempting convert straight graded CACG somewhere else get grade bump up. Of course the higher the bump up value the more that target pursued. It may not be exceptionally big ticket but it’s the pct bump up value. With all the details CACG seen in auc are many those failures somebody tried cross straight?
Sorry all I’m good for is memes.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Wow. Had no idea there was SO much passion on the issue. I'm glad I posed the query. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. They all have helped edumacate me to some extent.:)
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
"Strict" and "tough" is an assessment of the adherence to a standard or a rule. The problem that is being overlooked is that to call some "the strictest" or "the toughest" you have to have the "golden" or universal standard that you're comparing to. For some this might be ANA, or others it's their own personal standard or some other published standard. Having lower numbers does not mean the standard is stricter because perhaps the numbers are too low compared to that ANA standard in which case you have deviation in the other direction. Undergrading should be seen as no better than overgrading when you're measuring adherence to a standard.
We can debate all day long how the TPG's standard compare to the ANA (or any other) standard but due to the subjectivity involved it will probably not get anywhere. So again I return the my axiom that we should acknowledge and accept each TPGs standards are unique and their own, learn how to "convert" grades from one standard into another and collect/buy/sell accordingly, and stop obsessing over which standard is better, tougher, stricter, etc.
Now if we want to get into consistency that's a different story but that would be an assessment of the likelihood of a TPG deviating from their standard (or making mistakes) over a certain sample size. I don't think that's what we're talking about here but it's easy to find a "deviant grade" and level accusations of "loose standards" when it's just a statistical inevitability that all TPGs try to minimize to varying degrees of success as part of their quality control. This discussion is tough because it's impossible to assess accurately and fairly. PCGS and NGC have graded so many coins that there have been thousands and thousands of deviant grades issued and these tend to grab the attention more than the properly graded coins.
As with many things in life, there is a bell curve of performance against the TPG standard (the apex of the curve). Deviation from the standard will naturally occur. Ideally, between major TPGs, there is a generally understood standard by coin series that is shared between TPGs more often than not.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Despite what you said, with respect to the question posed by this thread, the words “strict” and "tough" aren't assessments of the adherence to a “universal standard”. They’re assessments of grading relative to other grading companies. And as far as I can tell, the opinion regarding which company is the strictest/toughest hasn’t been debated by anyone but you. You can label the strictest/toughest grading “under-grading” or whatever you want, but it’s still the strictest/toughest.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
“to some extent”. Yes, absolutely. Nothing really wrong with any of the posts by themselves but your thread went off the rails somewhat. JMO
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
“Tough” is not a virtue unless it’s also consistent and accurate.
The sin of under-grading is no better than the sin of over-grading.
And that was my point. It's futile to compare the different company's standards. Does it really matter is one uses a metric ruler and the other uses SAE? Why is it so important that all TPGs assign the same grade number when they all have different standards? Why is it meaningful for a CACG 64 to be a PCGS 65? It isn't. They are based on different standards.
I know you don't like that analogy but it works perfect. A coin grade is a measurement of the 3 qualities (surface, strike, luster/eye appeal) and a ruler measures length. If PCGS had it's own rule that measures my pen to be 6 units long and NGC has a ruler that measures the same pen to be 5.8 units long, one is not stricter, better, tighter, looser, or worse than the other. When I tell you the NGC measurement, you just multiply by 1.03525 if you want to think about it in PCGS terms. And when someone asks which one is tougher the only response that makes sense is they are different rulers and cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Sure, people might use this for marketing and say that their pens are better because they are 6 PCGS units long, but the smart consumer knows that the 5.8 unit NGC pen offers the same value. Please humor the scenario where pens are sold and valued based on length.
We agree on something - different grading companies have different standards. Where we disagree is with respect to whether it's futile to compare those different standards and what the comparisons show.
Most everyone who's commented on this subject in this and other threads believes that CACG's standards are tougher/more conservative/stricter than those of the other grading companies. You're free to disagree or believe that there's no way to make such a determination.
And your ruler analogy still falls (pun intended) way short.
Now, you'll have to carry on without me in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Is net grading done by the EAC under grading? If so would that be considered to be a sin?
You have left something out. The CACG ruler! That ruler measures your pen as 4 units long. Therefore, I think most posters here would agree that CACG is the toughest service. They are trying to turn back the clock to a standard long past.
CACG uses the alphabet ruler: A, B, C, and F, don’t they? Or is that just the CAC part? Now, I’ve done gave myself a headache.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
In reality, none of the grading services in the United States seems particularly strict to me.
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
You missed the entire point. I will try one more time.
In order to measure strictness you need a universal golden standard. For example, the standard of a meter is the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. If you have a ruler and I have a ruler, the "strictest" ruler is that one that is closest to that standard.
To debate which TPG is the strictest, you have to define a golden or universal standard you're comparing to. Is it the ANA standard? Or your own? Or something else? As stated and agreed upon, each TPG has their own standard. To debate which one is the strictest you have to define the standard you are comparing to, and no one here has specified that. Instead the forum members tend to go by the TPG that issues the lowest numbers, but that doesn't measure strictness at all because it's possible that the numbers can be too low. Your ruler can measure a bit long and mine a bit short. That doesn't mean one is better than the other as long as you know what you're getting when you buy a meter of something from my store or your store. Presumably, if I charge proportionally less for my meter of product compared to yours, it's the same value.
Whatever. You can keep deceiving yourself and others all you wish. The simple fact is this: PCGS came about because the grading services at that time were too strict. I don't know the actual reason NGC was started. After several decades, CAC came along because NGC and PCGS had become too loose! CACG is a spin off of that company.
Do you really believe CACG is going to start off less strict than CAC was? All I hear are complaints about how tough and unrealistic they grade.
Now throw away the ruler stuff and stick to examples about the grading services as I have done here. What do you disagree with in this post?
PS As you stated, there is no grading standard! A standard does not change with the passage of time or increases of value. Additionally, all of us are different. A twenty year old kid grading a silver eagle in a few seconds using his/her eyes alone is not going to have the same opinion all of the time as the collector who buys it and sticks a 10X magnifier on it. IMO, TPGS are a crutch that offer some degree of protection to the ignorant collector while keeping us more safe from counterfeits. I'll buy coins from any TPGS including the shady ones, but I'll never send a coin to any of them!
Well played Yos..
Although I find that in some cases, we actually have Tuffer Tuff than Smith right here in the bay area.. (rock tuffness, not grades to be clear..)
"Strict" is a comparative term. One thing is strict relative to another. No one here has stated the standard they are comparing the "strictness" to. It's like saying my shoe is longer. This statement is meaningless. Longer than what? Longer than my kid's shoe for sure. Not as long as Shaq's shoe. See how that works? It only becomes meaningful when you say what you're comparing it to.
I did not say there was no standard. The ANA standard is one grading standard, Ruddy Photograde is another, etc. Each TPG has their own standard. You can compare standards. But you can't be strict relative to nothing. Is CAC strict to the PCGS standard? No of course not, but it is a meaningless comparison because they do not claim to use the same standards and are not trying to be PCGS. Are they strict to the ANA standard and who comes closest? That's something we can debate. But no one here will even say what standards they are comparing. Instead there is a fallacy that low numbers = strict when that's not how you measure strictness.
One standard is not better than another. There is probably one TPG's standard that comes closest to the ANA standard but does that make it the best standard? That's kind of a personal choice. Or can we just recognize that each standard is different and collect, buy, and sell accordingly?
So back to the OP question, which TPG is the toughest? Toughest relative to what?
Edited to add:
In this context, I could easily argue that CACG is the least strict to the ANA grading standard because by policy (by CACG standard) they ignore the bottom ~1/3 of each grade and assign it one point lower. I'm not sure it's even valid to compare the "limited spectrum" or "down rounding" standard used by CACG to a full spectrum TPG like PCGS or NGC.
Mt. St. Helena? I've never climbed there; heard it is soft in places. (So is Smith Rock, in places).
Grading has a subjective component and always will. TPG offers a snapshot opinion captured at the time of encapsulation. And with any opinion, the opinion can change over time. And some opinions are better than others. What is tough (tuff), conservative and strict is really a sideshow that serves more as a distraction than adding numismatic value. And rarely do those terms define what is the best outcome/opinion in connection with what matters the most- the real essence and DNA of the coin itself.
As time passes, a coin really should remain constant and not change…unless it is exposed to unforeseen elements. However, the opinions of a coin easily can change depending on rarity and other factors. Tough, strict or conservative are not terms at the forefront that shape grading opinions… instead they are used as terms to shape expectations. And expectations might be the subject of a different thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Same coin.
Two different OPINIONS.
Two different METRICS.
Two VERY different images.
Shrug.
What were the two grades, if I may be so inquisitive?
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
Never mind. I looked 'em up. I guessed the grade and it was exactly what our host graded it. CACG's grade was (dare I say it as the OP of this fascinating thread) too tuff.
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
Lol I think your way off base on that Feld.
That’s pretty funny, considering how much you post, without bothering to pay attention to what others have written. Why don’t you tell us what threads and comments from @JCH22 have lead you to believe he’s a troll. Yeah, I know, as you’ve written before, you don’t have to explain anything you say here - lucky for you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Think? First time for everything I guess. Big time.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
@PeakRarities we need the wheel again!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
You have it backwards Feld. I liked JCH comment. I do believe there are about 4 people in here who stalk, quote, target, bash others. Keyboard warriors. If one plays GTAO the equivalent there was KDR warriors in free roam. However KDR points in freeroam (public lobby) was nerfed over a year ago. Now only in deathmatch related jobs one can get KDR points.
Why is quoting bad? Because it memorializes your quote so you can't change it multiple times?
I have to assume I am one of the people you are referencing here. I'll make you a deal. When you show any evidence of either having read other peoples' posts OR you make a post that is actually relevant to the topic at hand, I won't quote you. That's all any of us have ever wanted.
But, when you make ridiculous and inane posts, make ludicrous references and analogies, and completely ignore the existence of every other post in the thread, including your own, I can't stop myself from pointing out the absurdity. I guess you can call me Camus.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
As my beloved grandmother from the Old Country would say: "Come on. Play nice, kids."
"Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Especially a 1975 no S proof?)
LOL, you win. I am ignorant of the meaning of the word "standard" and the fact that any MAJOR professional coin dealer even looks at the ANA's Grading Standard.
But I can answer this: "So back to the OP question, which TPG is the toughest? Toughest relative to what?"
TOUGHEST RELATIVE TO THE GRADE ASSIGNED BY 90% OF THE COIN DEALERS sending coins to a grading company.
Yes, what were the grades? And before I get an answer I'd like to add that if any one of those two companies graded that coin MS with that much obvious wear, I'd like several of the 5* members to educate me and any others how the TPGS reached that opinion.
Unfortunately, I am not expecting any member to answer this question. So please put your teaching caps on and surprise me.