Options
Grading standards seem tougher today.Thoughts?
bestclser1
Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭
Most of us know the OGH thing is myth.I believe than in general,its tougher to make higher grade coinstoday,excluding Moderns.Thoughts?
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
0
Comments
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.
i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.
i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.
PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Many "Old Green Holder" and early blue label slabbed Morgan Dollars designated as DMPL under the old 6" mirror reflectivity standard, will only make PL under today's stricter approximately 8" mirror reflectivity standard.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>bestclser1: An exception to the general rule is that PCGS has definitely tightened up a lot in the last few years on assigning the PL and especially the DMPL designation to Morgan Dollars.
Many "Old Green Holder" and early blue label slabbed Morgan Dollars designated as DMPL under the old 6" mirror reflectivity standard, will only make PL under today's stricter approximately 8" mirror reflectivity standard. >>
Stuart,Totally agree about PLs and DMPLs.Also Morgan toners.
<< <i>my opinion is that grading by PCGS during the OGH time frame
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.
i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.
i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.
PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold. >>
In my series, I have yet to see an OGH that I thought deserved the grade. Many have been overgraded by as much as 2 points. I guess thats why they are still OGH.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>my opinion is that grading by PCGS during the OGH time frame
was much stricter then today. Also the quality of the coins
being submitted appear to be much higher also, during that
time frame.
i rarely find a OGH coin that I think does not deserve the
grade or super close to it. often they appear to look the
next grade up.
i look at gold mostly, other series may differ.
PCGS may have tightened up since i started reading these
boards, but I can barely tell when it comes to gold. >>
In my series, I have yet to see an OGH that I thought deserved the grade. Many have been overgraded by as much as 2 points. I guess thats why they are still OGH. >>
Totally agree.
i bet a lot of copper labeled RD must be RB now days?
<< <i>In my opinion, today's grading standards are a joke. >>
They are. Of course, they always have been with the major TPG's ( yes, even those who furnish a nice internet forum). As long as they continue to insist that coins with visible wear can be labled MS then they will continue to be a joke. As long as they continue to lable coins with wear in the fields as AU (ie wear on the LOWEST portion not the highest) instead of XF the standards will continue to drop.
<< <i>In my opinion, today's grading standards are a joke. >>
Especially on Morgans at NGC. Overgraded, stars on everything. But they understand coin accumulators' egos, and play to that. Pretty smart marketing.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Just browse through the Heritage auction archives.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I think PCGS is more consistent with assigning correct grades today, and they were more prone to making mistakes in the old days. There are a few MS-62 coins in th Barber dimes that look like 65's, and a couple of 65's that don't look as good as a few of the 62's. Today, at least the grades they give out usually makes sense.
This point has been hashed and rehashed time and again (and again). My final opinion, based on my experience, is as follows:
When a collection put together quite some time ago comes to market, one finds that many of the older holder coins are indeed undergraded. On the other hand, browsing through Heritage boxes, ebay listings, or coins on the bourse, coins in older holders are as likely to be overgraded, puttied and turned in the holder, or otherwise dogs as they are to be accurately graded or undergraded.
TC71
<< <i>The coin is at least 66 or even 67 by today's standards but it just isn't valuable enough to warrant playing the crack-out game. >>
It would if the coin made 67. But given the difference in value from 66 to 67 ($110 to $1700) listed in the PCGS guide from 66 to 67, it would probably have to be a borderline 68 to get a 67 designation.
roadrunner
Re nice for the grade coins, I think almost everything graded 10 years ago would upgrade. I have to shake my head when I've seen many coins graded in the last few years which got a bump for the toning or eye appeal, and the technical aspects of the coin were ignored. That's how we got "market acceptable" graded coins. No thank you.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>read my lips ,pcgs has loosened a little bit compared to the beginning of the year. remember folks you cannot become intimidated, if you know how to grade and you dont get the grade you cant give up! >>
I think we found the PCGS mole.