Some more evidence that the grading services grade coin to market value
jbsteven
Posts: 6,178 ✭
001 1881 CC S$1 MS 64 DPL was a PCGS ms65PL
002 1884 CC S$1 MS 64 DPL was a PCGS ms65PL
These 2 coins were in properly graded (as ms65 coins) PCGS 65PL holders and are clearly DMPL coins by NGC standards. These coins even have a shot at being in DMPL PCGS holders. PCGS grades Morgans that are PL and DMPL a little tighter than NGC, this fact is well known.
My point is that these 2 coins are truly ms65 coins and either PL by PCGS standards or DMPL by NGC standards but NGC was reluctant to give these ms65DPL grades since the value jumps for those grades IMO. These coins will be resubmitted and I will give the results when they come back from NGC for a second time.
I have had NGC grade cracked out NGC 65DMPL Morgans as 66PL's but they won't give them the DMPL designation since the value jumps way up in those grades even though the coin came out of a 65DPL holder. If the coin was a 65DPL and they graded the coin a 66PL then why not the DPL designation? I had a NGC 65DPL Morgan go to a NGC 66PL and then to a PCGS 67PL, go figure.
I like to post these kind of results so people can be informed on how coins can be all sorts of different grades on any given day. Food for thought.
002 1884 CC S$1 MS 64 DPL was a PCGS ms65PL
These 2 coins were in properly graded (as ms65 coins) PCGS 65PL holders and are clearly DMPL coins by NGC standards. These coins even have a shot at being in DMPL PCGS holders. PCGS grades Morgans that are PL and DMPL a little tighter than NGC, this fact is well known.
My point is that these 2 coins are truly ms65 coins and either PL by PCGS standards or DMPL by NGC standards but NGC was reluctant to give these ms65DPL grades since the value jumps for those grades IMO. These coins will be resubmitted and I will give the results when they come back from NGC for a second time.
I have had NGC grade cracked out NGC 65DMPL Morgans as 66PL's but they won't give them the DMPL designation since the value jumps way up in those grades even though the coin came out of a 65DPL holder. If the coin was a 65DPL and they graded the coin a 66PL then why not the DPL designation? I had a NGC 65DPL Morgan go to a NGC 66PL and then to a PCGS 67PL, go figure.
I like to post these kind of results so people can be informed on how coins can be all sorts of different grades on any given day. Food for thought.
0
Comments
my impression is that the varying services each have their own set of grading standards, hence, they sometimes grade the same coin differently. nothing against NGC, i use and appreciate their services, but they tend to grade a bit more liberally across the board. JMHO, of course.
remember, i for one will be waiting on the re-crackout that probably won't happen.
al h.
<< <i>These 2 coins were in properly graded (as ms65 coins) PCGS 65PL holders >>
Then why were they re-submitted?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>remember, i for one will be waiting on the re-crackout that probably won't happen >>
did you miss my statement that I will resubmit these coins or did you think I was lying?
<< <i>Then why were they re-submitted? >>
becuase they were PCGS PL coins and I knew they were DMPL by NGC standards. did you miss that in my original post?
<< <i>did you miss that in my original post? >>
Nope.
Russ, NCNE
hey JB
i don't think i missed anything in your statement, though you may have missed something in mine. the resubmission i will be waiting for with baited breath is the one of the coins you are currently re-submiting. should they upgrade, i will be awaiting the crackout and re-submission of those coins.
clear it up any??
al h.
Tbig
<< <i>I knew they were DMPL by NGC standards >>
So far the evidence speaks to the contrary.
What are NGC DMPL standards?
PCGS has published their quantative "depth in inches" test, but even that is subjective since it is based on "clarity" of the mirrors at the required depth and clarity is subjective. Moreover, Mr. Hall has never claimed that the graders use a ruler or anything like that to judge depth of mirrors. Getting a cracked out and resubmitted PCGS DMPL back as a PL, sometimes with a higher grade, is a common lament.
CG
Edited to add: By the way, I do not disagree that the services consider market price in determining grade on liners when there is a big price leap to the higher grade.
Calgold:
The coins came back as DPL but were only PL by PCGS standards.
I would hope some former NGC and PCGS graders will chime in here on the official standards for each service on PL and DMPL mirror depths.
There is also no 'defined' standard for giving out that designation, graders just look at the coin, tilt it, and make a judgement call as to PL and DMPL. Most people experienced in this market can usually tell a PL from a DMPL quite easily. As far as giving out the PL designation by PCGS, they have always been somewhat lenient in some cases in that they will sometimes give a PL to a high end coin for the grade that is clearly only a barely semi PL coin at best, it's kinda like a 'PQ' desigantion IMO.
Trying to determine PL from DMPL by using meters or trying to measure the field depth in inches by using printed matter or whatever is not the way the services make the determination IMO, and can be more confusing than helpful IMO.
Not very scientific, lol. I had one coin with 6-1/2 inches of CLEAR reflectivity on the obverse and 8-9 inches in the reverse. I expected 63DMPL or 64DMPL. Came back 63, not even a PL!!!! A joke. So it's a re-submit.
I think the PCGS DMPL test falls apart with bad lighting or eyesight. It's really a terrible test.
I think ANACS used a ruler or the DMPL meter in the VAM book.
Free Trial
After seeing some of the over grades recently, I still wouldn't trust any of the companies!
According to some members, NGC is still tighter on Franklin FBL's than PCGS' standards, yet they reep the higher prices! Go figure?
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
<< <i>If adjustment in value is not the issue, or is it, would you keep resubmitting on a chance to get a grade you think is adequate for the coin. >>
value is the issue so yes I will submit themil it grades where I believe they belong as this is the reason for cracking the coins from the 65PL PCGS holders.
Thanks jb for posting these findings. If this is really occurring its total crap and smells fishy all around. Consistancy is the whole purpose and value of the certified coin. They are defeating themselves if anything else plays into the final grade of the coin. I wish the certified grading market was more competetive with companies that stress/demonstrate/proactive on consistancy versus all these companies chasing the short term gain.
islemangu@yahoo.com
See Current Sales on Etsy
https://www.etsy.com/shop/Islemangu?ref=shop_profile&listing_id=4331147333
<< <i>If this is really occurring its total crap and smells fishy all around. Consistancy is the whole purpose and value of the certified coin. >>
That sounds good in theory but consider grading a coin that jumps from $250 in 64 to $2,500 in 65. For 65 money, the coin needs to be "all there" for the grade. At some point, the grader has to look at the coin and ask himself if he would pay 65 money for it, and if the answer is no, do you think he should still go ahead and put it in a 65 holder on the basis that sometimes they are more lenient, or less careful, grading low priced liners?
As a collector who is not an expert grader, I know I would feel more protected by the third party grade if I knew that the graders erred on the side of conservativeness. To put it another way, have you ever been burned buying an undergraded coin?
CG
I understand where you are coming from but they SHOULD grade coins on what the grade of the coin is no matter what the next grade up prices might be. See my point also?
<< <i>they SHOULD grade coins on what the grade of the coin is >>
JB,
The problem is that what the grade of the coin is is subjective. The grade is what expert graders believe it is applying their grading standards. And when they have to decide things like whether there are really enough breast feathers on the eagle on an 1891-o dollar to merit a 65 grade they are going to have a hard time divorcing market factors from the equation.
Having said that, I have a bigger issue when they use market grading to overlook surface defects or poor strike and upgrade a coin due to beautiful toning or great luster. In those cases I think a coin should get the lower technical grade even if it can be sold for the next grade up price.
CG
Edited to add: Clearly my bias is that of a collector/buyer rather than a dealer/seller.