Options
Handing out 70's like Candy!!!
Coinhog
Posts: 1,336
Is it just me or does it seem like there are a lot more 70's coming out of PCGS over the last several years.
I for one prefer the days whe getting a 70 actually meant something significant. Now, emotionally it seems like 50/50 shot when waiting for your grades.
Case in point: 5 years ago the natural expectation for modern coin submittals was to get a 69. If you got a 70 it was like winning the lottery.
Now: It seems a let down if you do not get at leats one or several 70's in a multicoin (5 or less) submittal.
Your opinions?
I for one prefer the days whe getting a 70 actually meant something significant. Now, emotionally it seems like 50/50 shot when waiting for your grades.
Case in point: 5 years ago the natural expectation for modern coin submittals was to get a 69. If you got a 70 it was like winning the lottery.
Now: It seems a let down if you do not get at leats one or several 70's in a multicoin (5 or less) submittal.
Your opinions?
Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity.
0
Comments
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
<< <i>Perhaps PCGS has to keep up with all of the NGC 70's or else risk losing submission dollars to them. >>
When I was looking up the pops for the ms fractional buffs the other day I noticed there are more 70's than 69s.
$5,69-188,70-533
$10,69-124,70-482
42/92
I thought it meant you benefited from wishful grading.
Just kidding...
to begin with and now that the rules are changed you seem surprised?
<< <i>perhaps the US Mint is just doing a better job of producing perfect coins? >>
Dead on, Barndog!!!!
Advanced metalworking machinery, Precise CNC routing, and superb software like Artcam and 'dcarrcam'......the Mint certainly has some amazing tools at their disposal.
I believe the major setbacks occur when the Mint employees mis-handle the product and/or screw up the 'special' Mint packaging leading to coin damage!!!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>It does seem like we've seen more 70s coming out PCGS recently... maybe it's a sign of them adjusting to what the market thinks 70s should be... >>
Oh golly gee, where was that mindset when they started grading FS nickels!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Handing out 70's like Candy!!! >>
I disagree with this statement. The Mint IS doing a better job of producing defect free coins.
Look at PCGS MS70's. I have several and I don't see any flaws with them.
Do you have any examples of problem MS70 coins in PCGS holders?
JMHO, GrandAm
They do not follow their own standards in practice, requiring some degree of "perfect" (which there is no such thing with any
manufactured product)
You will never see the PNG do a "consumer protection" survey where they will take some of these $1,000 70s
and resubmit them to show just how repeatable the services are at designating this grade.
<< <i>I think it is a combination of the mint getting better with certain coins and submitters getting better in selecting the coins to submit. >>
Ha...when they began grading in 1986, there was almost never anything higher than 65, an occasional 66...then about 1990 they started issuing
lots of 67s and a few 68s...then what we have today...everything 69 and 70. PCGS's explanation was that people are getting better at deciding which coins to submit.
Spots probably developed after it was graded
Many of the moderate to large volume submitters try to save $$ by some quick prescreening before submission.
I know I do!!
GrandAm
When the masses of these were submitted back in 2001 the 70 rate was about 1%. Oreville holds back 7 years and submits his hoard blind and gets a 14% and 20% rate of 70s.
All PCGS has done over the years by loosening their standard is lower the value of these coins and increase submissions. Good for collectors? Good for dealers? You decide.
<< <i>All this stuff about the mint doing a better job and submitters sending in better coins pretty much gets blown out the water in Oreville's Buffalo Dollar thread.
When the masses of these were submitted back in 2001 the 70 rate was about 1%. Oreville holds back 7 years and submits his hoard blind and gets a 14% and 20% rate of 70s.
All PCGS has done over the years by loosening their standard is lower the value of these coins and increase submissions. Good for collectors? Good for dealers? You decide. >>
Amen Fatman.
Now, I guess one could pose the question in another way; Was PCGS too tight early on in it's existence, and have they since become more in tune with actual grades?
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
<< <i>All this stuff about the mint doing a better job and submitters sending in better coins pretty much gets blown out the water in Oreville's Buffalo Dollar thread.
When the masses of these were submitted back in 2001 the 70 rate was about 1%. Oreville holds back 7 years and submits his hoard blind and gets a 14% and 20% rate of 70s.
All PCGS has done over the years by loosening their standard is lower the value of these coins and increase submissions. Good for collectors? Good for dealers? You decide. >>
HA! gradflation rears it's ugly head with moderns now, huh?! pretty funny stuff.
<< <i>All this stuff about the mint doing a better job and submitters sending in better coins pretty much gets blown out the water in Oreville's Buffalo Dollar thread.
When the masses of these were submitted back in 2001 the 70 rate was about 1%. Oreville holds back 7 years and submits his hoard blind and gets a 14% and 20% rate of 70s.
All PCGS has done over the years by loosening their standard is lower the value of these coins and increase submissions. Good for collectors? Good for dealers? You decide. >>
A good way to lower your liability too [esp for the ASEs which can spot] the more 70s you have; the less each one is worth.
<< <i>All this stuff about the mint doing a better job and submitters sending in better coins pretty much gets blown out the water in Oreville's Buffalo Dollar thread.
When the masses of these were submitted back in 2001 the 70 rate was about 1%. Oreville holds back 7 years and submits his hoard blind and gets a 14% and 20% rate of 70s.
All PCGS has done over the years by loosening their standard is lower the value of these coins and increase submissions. Good for collectors? Good for dealers? You decide. >>
heh. now we know who drinks the kool aid around here and who does not.
<< <i>Something seems to have changed. Be it the mint doing a better job or submitters. >>
Perhaps a combination of the two.
Most modern minted collector coins should be 70s with today's technology anyway, in my opinion.
The mention of Oreville's Buffalo Dollar thread got me to thinking of is there a way of tracking when gradeflation set in?
2001 was not only the year the Buffalo Dollar was issued, but when the TPG's formed their Registry programs.
Is there verifiable data available for when gradeflation began? Is there a correlation between the registry programs and gradeflation?
Or is gradeflation a perceived trend without any true data to back it up?
In economics one can look at price data to track inflation or deflation, what about gradeflation in the collecting world?
Is it a matter of going through shared order submissions over the years or going through population reports from past years the the way of tracking this? Has anyone gone through this great chore?
How can the matter of resubmissions be factored in? I see no way of determining a way of finding a way of separating resubmissions of coins that would clearly be considered undergraded by most from those that may be resubmissions that were in hopes of receiving benefit from "gradeflation" grading standards changing over the years.
Can gradeflation only be verified in low population coins when one can point to a visual record or individual coins being upgraded over the years? With the larger population coins how can one truley factor in submitter's experience increasing over the years and high grade hoards or mini hoards coming into the market....?
For years on this message board, collectors feared they were not getting a fair shake out of PCGS on their submissions for 70's. One thing for certain, over the past couple years you seldom read that type of thread any more by collectors. Oreville's submission is a prime example of that, no doubt.
You have to also remember that for several years, virtually -0-coins grading 70 came out of PCGS - starting late 1998 as I recall. This is one of the items DH "fixed" after there was a changing of the guard at PCGS when R.M. left for NGC. Hence, the release of the Buffalo Dollars were right around the time of PCGS making adjustments to their 70 line (which was non-existent for the previous few years prior to 2001). This explains (to me at least) Oreville's 15% 70 rate vs. a prior rate of roughly 2%. PCGS was simply not utilizing the 70 grade efficiently around the time of the release of those Buffalo Dollars. Again, DH adjusted things when he took over.
It is what it is.... I remember those days well.
Wondercoin
MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed
MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary
MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike
None of the definitions include the words perfect or near perfect. These are copied from here. PCGS grading standards
I'll leave it up to others to define what "as struck" and "full strike" actually mean.
<< <i>Time for a review of what their grading standards are:
MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed
MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary
MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike
None of the definitions include the words perfect or near perfect. These are copied from here. PCGS grading standards
I'll leave it up to others to define what "as struck" and "full strike" actually mean. >>
If 69 is "as struck with MINUSCULE IMPERFECTIONS"
and 70 is "as struck"
Would it not be logical to assume that a 70 is a 69 with NO IMPERFECTIONS? The "Perfect" seems to be logically implied.
Even if we assume that PCGS grades a coin 70, and it does not need to be "Perfect", what the heck do they do if a BETTER example shows up? Give it a "71"? Maybe get CAC to sticker it?
If "70" is the ULTIMATE, the HIGHEST grade achievable, then 70 implies perfection. If you check the other grade definitions, they may not actually mention that the coin must be in one piece. Therefore, a coin that is broken in two could still be "solid for the grade".
<< <i>perhaps the US Mint is just doing a better job of producing perfect coins? >>
Are you serious?
<< <i>If the best the mint can produce today is not a 70........ >>
.......return it from whence it came.....!!!...