Interesting thread from across the street

tradedollarnut · February 22, 2010 1:04AM

Hmmmmmm

Robb · February 22, 2010 1:16AM

I'm with Bartlesvilleok. I see it as a half grade and I'm not in favor of it.

seemyauction · February 22, 2010 1:16AM

I think its about the dumbest thing I have ever heard, which means we will probably see it in the near future............

Robb · February 22, 2010 1:18AM

<< I think its about the dumbest thing I have ever heard, which means we will probably see it in the near future............

>>

I imagine it will happen if for no other reason than the money to be made of off resubmissions. It's less of a gamble to crack and resubmit for a full grade higher when you also have the chance to get the PQ.

moonshine · February 22, 2010 1:20AM

I don't think anything that accurately describes the coin is dumb. It would be smart too if they would grade each side individually. ;>

TwoSides2aCoin · February 22, 2010 1:24AM

Bruce, you've been around the block with the best. What do you think ?

tradedollarnut · February 22, 2010 1:26AM

<< Bruce, you've been around the block with the best. What do you think ? >>

My answer is in the thread:

Yes, because it will lead to less gradeflation and also more accurate values. Just like when grading copper the old adage is give the grade or the designation but not both - a coin that deserves better than 64 but maybe not 65 will now have a 64PQ grade and be more accurately valued than if it were in either a 64 or 65 holder.

Edited to add an example:

When I was building my seated dollar set there were 2 or 3 coins in NGC 65 holders that were better than my current example, but I simply would not buy them because they were liner coins and not worth the huge jump in price. Had they been more accurately graded [and thus priced] in 64PQ holders, they would have been welcome additions to the set.

Bochiman · February 22, 2010 1:37AM

<< Dumb mistake. If you can't tell a coin is PQ collect something else. Half grades or PQ desigination will only inflate the prices of those coins.

We know how accurate the * desigination is. >>

A little different than the words I would have chosen but the thoughts are the same as what I have on this.

tradedollarnut · February 22, 2010 1:38AM

Half grades or PQ desigination will only inflate the prices of those coins.

Yes, that's true - but will inflate them much less than the next grade up would. And since collectors predominantly own the nicer for the grade coins, collectors would benefit the most from such inflation. [same thing I've been saying about CAC].

tradedollarnut · February 22, 2010 1:40AM

Those who can't grade now bid up desiginated PQ coins hoping for the eventual upgrade. Anything that that makes a coin more marketable clearly will cause price inflation.

Those who CAN grade already bid up the nice coins with the intention of submitting them over and over until they stick to the ceiling and get the next grade up.

notwilight · February 22, 2010 1:43AM

PQ can mean anything in classic coins. Mark seems to be talking technical grade. PQ often means eye appeal on top of the technical details. If any TPG decides to use the PQ designation, then they should define what they mean.

In moderns, since original skin and toning are generally not an issue, the I use PQ to discuss technical details. Would I be in favor of the TPGs designating it? I don't know. To be perfectly honest, it would decrease my value to my customers in helping them find PQ coins. But it would make sight unseen deals easier.

--jerry

oreville · February 22, 2010 1:45AM

No.

For TPG's to delineate which of their slabs are PQ and which ones are NOT PQ will NOT lead to general inflation in the price of the PQ slabbed coins but a harmful DEFLATION or price decline in the HAVE NOTS. They will become pariahs in their previously accepted world.

IT is one thing for an outside service to review such coin/slab but at least that is optional. If the TPG's do it, it cannot be optional.

UncleJoe · February 22, 2010 1:49AM

The problem IMO is that a grade represents a range. Unfortunately (or fortunately dependent upon how you look at it), within this range some coins will be "better" than others. In fact, except for your extreme grades if you look at two different coins within the same grade, you will more than likely be able to say one is "better" than the other setting-up a possible infinite # of sub-grades.

Sometimes we cannot even agree on whole grades. Just imagine how often we would be able to agree on fractional grades.

Joe.

curly · February 22, 2010 1:57AM

I think it's an excellent idea.

Unknown · February 22, 2010 1:59AM

This content has been removed.

pmac · February 22, 2010 2:04AM

How'd this thread last this long?

RYK · February 22, 2010 2:15AM

Decimal grading is the answer. That way, when you resubmit your coin, you are virtually guaranteed to get a different grade.

Res · February 22, 2010 2:19AM

<< Decimal grading is the answer. That way, when you resubmit your coin, you are virtually guaranteed to get a different grade. >>

Thought that was already the case

Should it be only one decimal place or two?

Fairlaneman · February 22, 2010 2:27AM

This is a "Fantastic Looking" coin but we are going to grade it MS64PQ instead of MS65 like it should be graded because we do not want to go out on a limb with the 65 grade just in case we change our mind about the grade at a later date.

Good Gawd.

Ken

crypto79 · February 22, 2010 2:28AM

To be honest I think it is more important for the Cir grades where wear and tear vary so much. I have coins that have the look, luster and pop of AU but wear in line with 45 (and vice versa). Esp in the lower grades where you have almost full enough rims/liberty/feathers for XXX grade.

On the flip side I think half grades would muddles the MS side of things, we do not need 21 different MS grades. The differences between Ms grades are subjective at best and TDN point while a good one seems to me to be based more on the specific coin he mentioned or the price structure of said series then the merit of the grading system. He stated that some of the 65's where nicer the his 64's but over priced(paraphrased) but not worth the price bump. Sounds like nice 64's being a value compared to solid 65's being overpriced, that would not change with 1/2 grades nor did it sound like the coins he mentioned were incorrectly graded since most of his coins are PQ and a coin that is a little nicer then a PQ 64 is a 65(9999 out of 10000 times)

At the end of the day if you take 10 of the same series and date and grade and line them up side by side, you will have a best, worst and 8 inbetween and it doesn't matter if the grad is 4, 50, 64 or 58 1/2.

pheh · February 22, 2010 2:34AM

What all of this leads to, for me, is a half-implemented service. Seriously, are you going pre-CAC CAC?

A fully implemented service would be a value-add written evaluation. This written evaluation would conclude with the final grade as labeled. Regardless of implementation I would expect insurance premiums to rise for any TPG which further extends their grading evaluations. And, inevitably this will be passed on to the consumer.

coinguy1 · February 22, 2010 2:34AM

<< This is a "Fantastic Looking" coin but we are going to grade it MS64PQ instead of MS65 like it should be graded because we do not want to go out on a limb with the 65 grade just in case we change our mind about the grade at a later date.

Good Gawd.

Ken >>

Ken, if that is their mindset (which I seriously doubt), they don't need the "PQ" designation to do that. They can simply grade a coin 64 instead of 65.

Fairlaneman · February 22, 2010 2:39AM

<< 

<< This is a "Fantastic Looking" coin but we are going to grade it MS64PQ instead of MS65 like it should be graded because we do not want to go out on a limb with the 65 grade just in case we change our mind about the grade at a later date.

Good Gawd.

Ken >>

Ken, if that is their mindset (which I seriously doubt), they don't need the "PQ" designation to do that. They can simply grade a coin 64 instead of 65. >>

Very true.

The point is that if they think they need to put PQ on the slab then I think they have some doubt in their mind whether its 64 or 65. Thats my take.

Ken

lkeigwin · February 22, 2010 2:40AM

There are plenty of good arguments about learning to grade and not relying on the TPG label, or losing a special advantage because one knows how to grade and can make decisions without a PQ tag. But I see a benefit for online and sight-unseen purchases.

It probably would bring new business to the TPG's and some short-term profit. Many collectors would want their nice coins newly labeled PQ. And it might hurt CAC's business, not that either matters in the long run.
Lance.

Arizonadesertrat · February 22, 2010 3:33AM

Adding a 'PQ'-type designation to the grade is pointless. There simply isn't enough consistency in grading to warrant an increase in the fineness of the grading. What is the real intent of this proposal? To encourage more submissions, in all likelihood.

To use a scientific/engineering analogy, the uncertainty in the grade is frequently +/- 0.3 points for MS coins, so the PQ designation would still fall in the 'noise'. This is stupid.

littlebear · February 22, 2010 3:33AM

Overall, a great idea! Anything that will clarify a grade is a good idea.

Larry L.

Lakesammman · February 22, 2010 3:36AM

Doesn't the CAC sticker already provide the PQ answer?

ColonialCoinUnion · February 22, 2010 3:40AM

If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better.

yellowkid · February 22, 2010 3:42AM

Crypto79 said it, the difference in many of the MS grades are subjective, I don't know how you can have half grades or further break down the existing grade sysytem. When I see a coin with "PQ" or a star, to me it means that the piece has pop, not that it is "close to the next grade" therefore it should cost more. And coins with pop really don't need to be identified anymore than a guy in a clown suit needs a sign around his neck that says "clown."

tradedollarnut · February 22, 2010 3:42AM

<< Doesn't the CAC sticker already provide the PQ answer? >>

IMO, yes. But I'm certain that neither service likes having someone looking over their shoulder.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 22, 2010 3:47AM

<< 

<< Doesn't the CAC sticker already provide the PQ answer? >>

IMO, yes. But I'm certain that neither service likes having someone looking over their shoulder.

>>

tada...

Now if you would just get a proofreader for that lady.

Arizonadesertrat · February 22, 2010 4:21AM

<< 

<< 

<< Doesn't the CAC sticker already provide the PQ answer? >>

IMO, yes. But I'm certain that neither service likes having someone looking over their shoulder.

>>

tada...

Now if you would just get a proofreader for that lady.

>>

PROOFREADER?? Heaven forbid. Her market reports have a --- je n'sais pas --- New Jersey-kind of charm which is rather rare.

notwilight · February 22, 2010 4:36AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Doesn't the CAC sticker already provide the PQ answer? >>

IMO, yes. But I'm certain that neither service likes having someone looking over their shoulder.

>>

tada... Now if you would just get a proofreader for that lady.

>>

PROOFREADER?? Heaven forbid. Her market reports have a --- je n'sais pas --- New Jersey-kind of charm which is rather rare.

>>

You mean "J'ne said quoi" ...oops, you don't believe in proofreading...

chucknra · February 22, 2010 4:38AM

Bad idea across the board!!!!!

MidLifeCrisis · February 22, 2010 4:44AM

<< If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>

Exactly.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 22, 2010 4:58AM

<< 

<< If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>

Exactly.

>>

Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better.

mozin · February 22, 2010 4:58AM

I am very much against such a PQ designation by NGC. CAC stickers already mean upper end for the grade, and they come from a second and independent source.

DeepCoin · February 22, 2010 5:04AM

I concur with mozin. TDN made the observation that TPGs don't want someone looking over their shoulder and I think it is important that someone IS looking over their shoulder. The PQ idea is not a good one IMHO.

MrEureka · February 22, 2010 5:05AM

I'd be all for it if I thought that it could be done right, i.e., with reasonable consistency. However, based on our experience with the reigning TPGs, I don't think it's possible.

joebb21 · February 22, 2010 6:03AM

basically what ngc seems to be doing is making cac part of their slabs, and telling us whether the coin is pq or not. It does save us the problem of sending the coin to a second party to get a sticker-

I do agree with what orvelle was saying. All non pq coins will fall in price. but Is this necessarily a bad thing? correction in market?

cac coins already sell at premiums to BID and non cac coins already sell at bid or slightly below.

Will ngc top out cac? I dont think so-

I agree with whomever said that NGC PQ graded coins will be crackout games for certain dealers. Ngc makes more money and thats their bottom line

I vote no.

SeaEagleCoins · February 22, 2010 6:15AM

<< basically what ngc seems to be doing is making cac part of their slabs, and telling us whether the coin is pq or not. It does save us the problem of sending the coin to a second party to get a sticker-

I do agree with what orvelle was saying. All non pq coins will fall in price. but Is this necessarily a bad thing? correction in market?

cac coins already sell at premiums to BID and non cac coins already sell at bid or slightly below.

Will ngc top out cac? I dont think so-

I agree with whomever said that NGC PQ graded coins will be crackout games for certain dealers. Ngc makes more money and thats their bottom line

I vote no. >>

Actually such a move would just complicate and/or confuse the whole sticker thing...

take one coin with no PQ... but it gets a sticker... meaning "solid for the grade"...

then another coin gets the PQ ... it gets a sticker... meaning "solid for a PQ example of the grade????"

one w/o PQ gets a gold sticker... and one w/ PQ gets no sticker... then the TPG won't cross a coin into a PQ holder that has a gold sticker...

it could give one a headache...

and besides... since when do most folks agree with most grades they see on labels... stickered, not stickered, starred or whatever... ????

mikeyg · February 22, 2010 6:22AM

<< 

<< Bruce, you've been around the block with the best. What do you think ? >>

My answer is in the thread:

Yes, because it will lead to less gradeflation and also more accurate values. Just like when grading copper the old adage is give the grade or the designation but not both - a coin that deserves better than 64 but maybe not 65 will now have a 64PQ grade and be more accurately valued than if it were in either a 64 or 65 holder.

Edited to add an example:

When I was building my seated dollar set there were 2 or 3 coins in NGC 65 holders that were better than my current example, but I simply would not buy them because they were liner coins and not worth the huge jump in price. Had they been more accurately graded [and thus priced] in 64PQ holders, they would have been welcome additions to the set. >>

Listen guys you get what you pay for.A 64pq or 64.5 wouldnt sell for 64 money it would be more.Good for those who paid 64 money and are sitting on a mountain of product..not so good for someone who is looking to buy and start collecting JMHO

yellowkid · February 22, 2010 6:30AM

Grading is an art, not a science. Efforts to "decimilize" it further are, IMHO, a waste of time.

Gemineye · February 22, 2010 6:37AM

Stickers ..stars **...labels.....Hey we can even iradiate the darn label

...give it a thumbs up even..

...put whatever you want on it.There is one thing that's not gonna change..that's the coin inside.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 22, 2010 6:42AM

With respect to Mr Salzberg and the A team across the street, he only posed a question and asked for input. Let's not jump the gun (to those assuming this change is already implemented).

I think "premium quality" for the grade is the most diplomatic way out of the decimal system, but the idea also tears at the heart of the use of the star * for extreme eye appeal. And the biggest factor with "liner" coins usually isn't a factor at all with high end material, (is it ? )
In addition; it's usually not high end coins subjected to the "crack-out" except for "regrading" with the hope of an upgrade or because of the presentation not being adequate due to scratches on the holder, or some other nuance precluding a picky buyer from wanting the piece (right ? ).

With that in mind, I would suggest we leave well enough alone. Plus, this will keep CAC busy finding the "tweeners" and labeling them for half the cost than it would be for a "regrade" at either house.
And who's eyes are seeing the coins at all 3 places ?

This is neither a promotion of, nor an endoresement of the TPGs or CAC. If grading is so intricate, that one numeric point is that big of a deal, then the price guide structure needs to change, not the grading standards.

Cheddy · February 22, 2010 7:00AM

<< Stickers ..stars **...labels.....Hey we can even iradiate the darn label

...give it a thumbs up even..

...put whatever you want on it.There is one thing that's not gonna change..that's the coin inside. >>

buy the coin not the holder.

Frankcoins · February 22, 2010 7:01AM

Scott Travers reported years ago that the major grading companies already designate coins as A B or C (PQ, average or low end) but that designation is not on the slab, and not available to the person who paid the grading fee. I never understood this lack of full disclosure, as is legally required in appraisals of real estate or stocks and bonds. People have gone to jail for omitting things...even if only an opinion....that MIGHT affect the value.

IGWT · February 22, 2010 7:07AM

-- Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. --

I'm still waiting for anyone in favor of the "box of 20" idea to explain why a "box of 1" isn't even better.

gsa1fan · February 22, 2010 7:25AM

Forum Police! Citizens arrest!

"Rule 7) This is a PCGS forum. Posts promoting or bashing other grading companies or service are not allowed. Those posts will be removed and your posting privileges may be removed as well."

coinguy1 · February 22, 2010 7:30AM

<< Scott Travers reported years ago that the major grading companies already designate coins as A B or C (PQ, average or low end) but that designation is not on the slab, and not available to the person who paid the grading fee. I never understood this lack of full disclosure, as is legally required in appraisals of real estate or stocks and bonds. People have gone to jail for omitting things...even if only an opinion....that MIGHT affect the value. >>

Perhaps that was done 20+ years ago in some cases by some graders. But even if so, I don't think it has been done since. So, it's not a lack of full disclosure, but rather, a lack of the facts.

Hussulo · February 22, 2010 7:35AM

I think its a silly idea. Aren't 70 numbers enough to grade a coin by?

For all those that say well two MS64's aren't the same, either you are getting a bit carried away with micrograding or perhaps there isn't a set consistent standard by the TGP's and maybe one is over or under-graded.

Interesting thread from across the street

Comments

Leave a Comment