Options
I just bought the ANA Grading Standards 6th ed. and I'm SHOCKED
IGWT
Posts: 4,975 ✭
On page 33, the authors discuss how standards have changed since the last edition, particularly regarding strike. Here's an excerpt:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.
Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."
---------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that strike is now used to net a grade as opposed to limit a grade, but I didn't realize that TPG grades no longer "reflect sharpness or quality." Did anyone get this memo? The published PCGS standards, of course, purport to take strike into consideration. Did Ken Bressett overstate the extent to which strike has diminished in importance in the grading of coins? Should the ANA standards yield to what the ANA perceives to be happening in the "real-world marketplace"?
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.
Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."
---------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that strike is now used to net a grade as opposed to limit a grade, but I didn't realize that TPG grades no longer "reflect sharpness or quality." Did anyone get this memo? The published PCGS standards, of course, purport to take strike into consideration. Did Ken Bressett overstate the extent to which strike has diminished in importance in the grading of coins? Should the ANA standards yield to what the ANA perceives to be happening in the "real-world marketplace"?
0
Comments
I knew it would happen.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>What a rip-off for collectors from a worse than useless organization. >>
Perhaps you may disagree with their grading stndards, but calling the ANA "useless" is 100% false. Without the ANA I would still be in the dark.
The market values different characteristics more highly at different times. Fashions change - at any given time, sharpness of strike, attractive luster, or absence of marks may be the most important criteria for the typical collector. Thus, two dissimilar coins given the same overall grade and fetching similar prices in 2007 may bring very different prices five years later, due to shifts in collector focus.
I think that giving an uncirculated coin a separate grade for each significant feature would make it easier to adjust for price differences over time, as collector tastes change. As an added bonus, more detailed grading would allow collectors to more easily narrow their searches to coins that have acceptable grades in the particular feature or features they care most about.
<< <i>On page 33, the authors discuss how standards have changed since the last edition, particularly regarding strike. Here's an excerpt:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. >>
Not this buyer. I like what the EAC does - grade it for sharpness and then net grade it for problems. The value of the coin should not be set by a market grade but by things like rarity, difficulty in finding and eye appeal. I don't think a weakly struck coin is a gem but that shouldn't affect its value if that is the way they come.
Now when you see a dealer who represents that he grades his coins according to ANA standards, we are all going to have to ask him which edition. Pfooey!
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Your predictions are important to us, as coins change !
Signed,
The ANA
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Funny! At first I thought that was just a blundered sentence. Now I realize that he probably meant exactly what he said!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I agree with you, TDN, but I read the ANA Guide to mean something else. First, the former ANA standards viewed strike as a grade limiting factor, but an MS-65 had to have a fairly sharp strike, not necessarily a full strike. Second, the 6th ed. reads as though strike isn't considered even in determining a net grade -- strike apparently doesn't count at all: A grade does "not inform[] as to sharpness, weakness, or the like . . . . The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."
-- "I don't see the point in the ANA caving in to gradeflation. PCGS/NGC etc., do not use ANA standards - they have their own grading standards. It's too bad that ANA standards couldn't be constant over time, as there is no economic incentive for the ANA to liberalize them.
Now when you see a dealer who represents that he grades his coins according to ANA standards, we are all going to have to ask him which edition. Pfooey!" --
My thoughts exactly, Howard. I can't see any benefit to the ANA in mimicking the TPGs and relaxing its standards. I do wonder, though, if it has anything to do with receiving paid endorsements from commercial graders.
Do you agree with him?
Collectors have always valued it more than the TPG's. In the 50's and 60's strike certainly was the strongest factor.
I can recall back in 1987 getting MS65's on some of my less than well struck coins from PCGS. An 1851-0 half dime with 1/2 a head comes to mind. It had MS66 luster, color and eye appeal. But they graded it MS65 (nothing was graded MS67 at the beginning). I sold the coin around 1988. Then ran into it during the mid-90's in a PCGS MS66 holder. Certainly strike standards were loosening more.
And in this case the coin was outstanding and deserving of the grade. Yet I too was surprised that a half head seated coin could make 66. And today they can make 67. Looking at flat head SLQ's they are graded as high as 67 with a 50% head because a separate category exists for a FH. That's not a level playing field when compared to MS 19th century bust/seated coinage that as a rule, does not come fully struck. I prefer a coin with better luster & surfaces over one with minor strike issues. Fully struck stars and other minor details are often not available on the few nice 19th century coins one finds.
I'm not schocked with ANA's changing standards. They changed with the times. If you look back at the ANA grading guide in the 1980's they required a full Good bust half to have full denticles, complete lettering, no weak areas, etc. An absurd requirement. But there it was in black and white. You often didn't have full denticles on Fine or VF coins. Frankly, the ANA standards were unrealistic for many years.
roadrunner
In TDN's example above the same coin with fully struck up stars would be worth considerably more, but since strike is not taken into account it could have the same numerical grade. Maybe this is what the consortium is all about.
-- "Funny! At first I thought that was just a blundered sentence. Now I realize that he probably meant exactly what he said!" --
Do you agree with him?
Almost. On the one hand, I agree that "buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like." On the other hand, it does not follow that the grading services have the same perspective. In other words, I think that the authors have mistaken cause for effect. The grading services do not base their standards on what is acceptable in the marketplace. Instead, the market sets a value on what is acceptable to the grading services. Of course, there is some feedback in the other direction, but it's relatively inconsequential.
BTW, none of this really matters. We all control our own wallets.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Strike was taken into account - it was docked a point for the strike. But it wasn't limited in grade to a preset level by the strike. Appropriate, in my mind.
<< <i>Graders wanted.... experience needed in meteorology.
Your predictions are important to us, as coins change ! >>
Today's coin grading forecast is a 30% chance of 64 with scattered 63s throughout the area...
<< <i>That's pretty amazing to me. A full sharp strike will always bring more money than a weak strike >>
All else being equal. I think it's far from clear that a weak strike with booming luster and no marks to found on the coin will sell for less than a strong strike which has been dipped out and owned by Freddy Krueger. This is particularly true if the weaker strike has nice original color.
Correction: TRUE collectors have always valued it more than the TPG's.
And they will continue to do so...........forever!
The only purpose for this 6th edition is to help the TGS increase their submissions. Erase the strike sharpness factor from the mint state grade, grading coins becomes more efficient and teaches a whole new generation of collectors to collect crap!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Even at the outset of TPG grading in 1986-87 it was quite clear that strike was not as important as luster, marks, and overall eye appeal. Collectors have always valued it more than the TPG's. In the 50's and 60's strike certainly was the strongest factor.
Correction: TRUE collectors have always valued it more than the TPG's.
And they will continue to do so...........forever!
The only purpose for this 6th edition is to help the TGS increase their submissions. Erase the strike sharpness factor from the mint state grade, grading coins becomes more efficient and teaches a whole new generation of collectors to collect crap!
Leo >>
I have never valued strike more than the TPGs - in fact, a bit less. Guess I'm not a TRUE collector.
<< <i>The more I read (here) of gradflation, changing standards, crackouts etc... the more I believe the name of this board should be changed to 'DEALERS UNIVERSE'.. collectors are but a small part of the traffic here. Cheers, RickO >>
Let's just say that it's a big part of the reason why I'm selling almost all my slabs and going back to collecting raw.
Though I don't think it's only 'dealers' who put up with the consequences of gradeflation, crackouts, and the impact of TPG marketing on coin prices.
<< <i>I like what the EAC does - grade it for sharpness and then net grade it for problems. The value of the coin should not be set by a market grade but by things like rarity, difficulty in finding and eye appeal. I don't think a weakly struck coin is a gem but that shouldn't affect its value if that is the way they come. >>
i wonder if i should re-submit?
A weak strike is "flat as a pancake" or not much better. I've only seen one Morgan that PCGS graded MS65 that was weakly struck. I've seen plenty at other services, so I disagree with the ANA's contention.
Free Trial