Slab Generations Can Introduce a Grading Bias
TrickleCharge
Posts: 331 ✭✭✭
Overall it's generally accepted that modern grading standards have loosened from what they once were. Let's focus instead on those instances where a recently graded coin is under graded by at least a full grade. Should these coins be looked at differently just because of the holder they reside in?
It was mentioned in another thread that CAC standards for awarding a gold sticker appear to be different depending on the generation of the holder. Coins in newer holders generally need to be solid at least two grades higher and may still need some dialogue or documentation to help the case for a gold sticker. Older holder coins seem to follow the published CAC definition and qualify for a gold sticker if solid at just one grade higher.
CAC's reasoning for this could be to reiterate that grading standards have changed. That point should still be shown though if the same stickering standards are applied to both old and new holders. They could also be trying to dissuade cracking out and trying to downgrade in order to get a gold bean. Whatever the reason, it muddies the water to have two different standards.
As CAC moves away from stickering and more into grading these next few years, their focus will be on the coin and not the holder for raw submissions. That said, holder bias can still exist for crossovers and reconsiderations. Let's hope for consistency when it can be controlled, not just from CAC but all of the TPGS.
Comments
As someone who has collected for about 70 years, I can say with assurance that standards are often looser today. I can’t offer proof, but I trust my eyes.
I’m talking mainly about coins in the 63-67 range and mainly common coins, which we see often enough that they form a pattern and are remembered.
“Standard” is the wrong word. Grading conventions & trends exist. There never were any actual standards.
Grading always has been and always will be a moving target when grading is done by humans, grading services, and firms subject to outside influences.
My question is if an exacting AI standard can survive everchanging market forces. I, for one, thinks it can not. The tail wags the dog. Any "STANDARD" can be right for a time, But most likely wrong in the long term. ANACS, PCGS, NGC, NCI, CAC, CACCG have all had their day in the sun but will eventually have to adapt to stay relevant or will see a new kid in town
Each AI "STANDARD" will have to be set at the values a programmer gives it. This set of values will go in and out of fashion depending on current market tastes. The big dogs will be fed, and unfortunately they set the market. Joe collector will, and has followed their lead
Think Ai edition 2, 3 and so on. As always, My opinion only J.P. Martin
50 yrs in Coins, 40 yrs Certifying/Grading, 30 consecutive years teaching ANA Summer seminar, 1998 Numismatic Ambassador award, 1998 Doctorate in Numismatics, Glenn Smedley Award, ANA Governor 200/2011, Author/ Host of ANA's best selling video's, courses on grading & counterfeit detection. Taught over 1,100 paying students, Secret service agents, San Diego to Boston, Anchorage to Miami, including 2 coin cruises. Free presentations. NLG book and video awards. ANA photographer, SEM operator, Appraiser, Contributor to Redbook, Numismatist, Coin World, Numismatic News ANA Grading Guides, 40,000 Volumes in my Library, Founder ANAAB, ICG, 1995 ANA collector services appraisal/conservation, First full service Ancient coin grading service. OD Navy 75-77, WIU 77-81, Coin dealer 1981-1984, 60 year Collector U.S./ 50 Year Ancient coins. 2011-date ANA Advisory Committee. Lifetime member ANA, ANS
Semi-retired Professional Grader(ANACS) and married Father to 3 teenage boys in Denver area.
I disagree @BryceM, but the ANA Standards were reviled before they were published and proved "unworkable" in the market (too strict, imagine that), so they were buried in favor of today's market grading.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Exactly, see my post. I remember when Good condition coins had to have fill rims obv /rev.
Standards change, generally looser. Circ. changes are minor compared to the expansion of the 11 point MS scale from 2 grades. Age provides perspective. J.P. Martin
50 yrs in Coins, 40 yrs Certifying/Grading, 30 consecutive years teaching ANA Summer seminar, 1998 Numismatic Ambassador award, 1998 Doctorate in Numismatics, Glenn Smedley Award, ANA Governor 200/2011, Author/ Host of ANA's best selling video's, courses on grading & counterfeit detection. Taught over 1,100 paying students, Secret service agents, San Diego to Boston, Anchorage to Miami, including 2 coin cruises. Free presentations. NLG book and video awards. ANA photographer, SEM operator, Appraiser, Contributor to Redbook, Numismatist, Coin World, Numismatic News ANA Grading Guides, 40,000 Volumes in my Library, Founder ANAAB, ICG, 1995 ANA collector services appraisal/conservation, First full service Ancient coin grading service. OD Navy 75-77, WIU 77-81, Coin dealer 1981-1984, 60 year Collector U.S./ 50 Year Ancient coins. 2011-date ANA Advisory Committee. Lifetime member ANA, ANS
Semi-retired Professional Grader(ANACS) and married Father to 3 teenage boys in Denver area.
Is it to the advantage for a TPG company to correctly (IMO) grade the item conservatively in order to secure a resubmission?
We seem to play a "I am smarter that them" approach.
I am probably wrong here but it is my humble opinion after 45 years in the business.
and Fine Barber and Seated coins needed full LIBERTY
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
FYI, there have been several occasions where I have received a plus added on via Reconsideration on a coin that had been recently graded and placed in a new holder with its accompanying “high” cert number.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996