Lowering the grading standards for rare and key date coins

BillJones · June 12, 2010 10:04PM

Concave rays Fugio cent

Yesterday one of our members started this string about a rare variety of a Fugio cent that caught his attention. I was disappointed with the fact that NGC graded this coin EF-40. That grade seemed to be totally based upon the sharpness grade, and totally ignored the fact that the coin is corroded. Why did NGC do this?

Years ago many dealers lowered their grading standards for key date and rare coins. To me this was totally unfair because the same standards should apply to all coins within a given series regardless of their rarity. One pays high prices for key dates and rarities because of their status within a series. It’s totally unfair to double up and lower the grading standards as well.

Has anyone else noticed other instances of this? I know I’ve seen them, but I would prefer to hold my fire in case this results in a more extended discussion.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 12, 2010 10:38PM

Good morning, Bill.
I'm not so sure the standards are lowered, but the availability of certain specimens is such, that the entities authenticating them are almost "forced" by the hands of the dealers to "recognize and net grade" those types of orbs you are referring to (ah, and probably for commercial reasons, not so much numismatic

).
Key dates that are rare or scarce are likely what allow concessions to be made, sidestepping logic. (availability issues). This may or may not confound those who are practical and definitive regarding grading standards. But I read your post and admire your ability to convey your message without a tirade.
Net grading a problematic piece is fine, but where does one draw the line ? If a coin is graded with a problem and the standards which would typically bodybag a coin does not apply , then there's a glitch in the system. And if we muddy the waters by not identifying issues on a coin, we destroy the fabric of the entire process when it comes to grading standards.

My thoughts going forward,

Joe

BillJones · June 12, 2010 10:55PM

Back when I was a kid collector, I wanted an 1877 Indian cent in Fine in the worst way so that it would match up with the rest of my set. When I finally got the money together to buy one I discovered that what qualified for "Fine" (full but not really sharp "LIBERTY") in say an 1882 Indian cent or even an 1878 or '73 was better than what qualified for "Fine" in an 1877. The VG 1877 cents had no letters of the "LIBERTY" and the so-called "FINE" examples had maybe three weak letters.

I found out that this called "chestnut grading," and it really angered me.

Later I did get that 1877 with the full "LIBERTY" for a Fine price, but that was after the Indian cent market collapsed and dealers were actually happy to sell them.

dyolfbp · June 12, 2010 10:57PM

I would rather see a key date holdered like that with it's flaws showing , than one that has been "conserved" in an attempt to hide the problems.

BillJones · June 12, 2010 11:03PM

<< I would rather see a key date holdered like that with it's flaws showing , than one that has been "conserved" in an attempt to hide the problems. >>

I agree with that point entirely. It's also great that we now have "genuine" holders for PCGS and regular looking holders for problem coins from NGC. A truly rare coin with problems deserves to be certified even if the service can't grade it. And it also should be in an attractive holder. I don't know about you, but I thought that that the old NCS holders were really ugly and did a lot to make much harder to sell the coin.

fivecents · June 13, 2010 12:03AM

PCGS will net grade a coin if it is historical, raw or "important" enough and the problem is not to severe. This used to be written in PCGS grading standards.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 13, 2010 12:15AM

<< PCGS will net grade a coin if it is historical, raw or "important" enough and the problem is not to severe. This used to be written in PCGS grading standards.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable. >>

True, and I'm left with the thought:

"Hey Joe, there's always ANACS "

golfer72 · June 13, 2010 12:24AM

Standards should be the same for all coins in a given series otherwise you dont have standards. Its the same thing when they lower the standards for "hoard" coins. Or CC Dollars or ...

PerryHall · June 13, 2010 1:08AM

<< Standards should be the same for all coins in a given series otherwise you dont have standards. Its the same thing when they lower the standards for "hoard" coins. Or CC Dollars or ... >>

.....Wells Fargo 1908 double eagles.

PerryHall · June 13, 2010 1:10AM

<< PCGS will net grade a coin if it is historical, raw or "important" enough and the problem is not to severe. This used to be written in PCGS grading standards.
I guess some coins are too cool to be left raw or ungradable. >>

I guess special coins get special grades.

lkenefic · June 13, 2010 1:44AM

Yes... I noticed this when I was shopping around for an 1877 IHC, 1909-S VDB, and 1914-D cents. For some reason, these particular coins received a 3 point pass in lower grades and as much as 5 pts in moderate grades. I could never find a properly graded 1877 (I was looking for a nice solid no problems F12 too) at my price point. I bought a raw 1909-S VDB and had it slabbed. I paid VF money at the time and figured it would slab at 30... it came back in an ANACS EF40 holder! My 1914-D was purchased slabbed (also ANACS) in a F15 holder, but I thought (and the board member I bought it fromthought) it was more VG10/F12 and I paid accordingly. The vast majority of these key dates appear to get a pass grade-wise (and to a lesser extent... problems too) but if you're patient, something will come up. However, it could take years!

kurtdog · June 13, 2010 1:52AM

I've seen them in the slabs with even details having been blown for the fact that they were keys. Let's just say they know it, but they don't like to talk about it too much.

jesbroken · June 13, 2010 2:06AM

I find it hard to believe that a company would risk its credibility in the numismatic marketplace by dropping its standards at certain times for certain coins. What is all the hoopola regarding "doctored" coins then? Why not just relax standards for them and allow them to get graded, after all, look at all the money to be made from this. These types of "relaxed standards" greatly reduces my ability to spend hard earned money to grade my nonrare coins by any of the tpg's, knowing that these pieces will have to adhere to the "strict" policies of the tpg.
JMO
Jim

StubbyMcNumbthumbs · June 13, 2010 2:14AM

<< Standards should be the same for all coins in a given series otherwise you dont have standards. Its the same thing when they lower the standards for "hoard" coins. Or CC Dollars or ... >>

The great thing about "standards" is that there are so many different ones to choose from!

COALPORTER · June 13, 2010 2:30AM

I've always thought key dates are graded conservative at the high end and slopy at the low end ?

golfer72 · June 13, 2010 2:32AM

"The great thing about "standards" is that there are so many different ones to choose from! " Good Point! And now we have plus grades?

tahoe98 · June 13, 2010 3:08AM

...feeding this thread is like dancing in a mine field.

mumu · June 13, 2010 3:08AM

This is one of those situations where a knowledgable collector's worst enemy is the un-knowledgeable collector and it drives me up a wall. I have encountered this scenario while buying darkside coins. A dealer will set a price on a scarce coin and completely ignore the poor condition and wont budge on price because he knows at some point some noob will come and pay it.

Teva · June 13, 2010 3:22AM

I think you are on to something.
I sent in two liberty caps 1794 and 1795 one was pretty worn the other was some where in the 30 range. The 1795 came back graded AG3 and I know this coin had some small problems all the same it graded. The 1794 came back in a genuine slab code 94.
If you ask me the 1794 had less problems than the 1795 but
I think they graded the 1795 because it was such a low grade they expect it to have problems at that grade. I was prepaired for both coins not to grade but I thought if one did grade it would of been the 1794.

Broadstruck · June 13, 2010 3:32AM

I saw that Fuglyo cent yesterday and also wondered how it made it into a non problem holder

Mowgli · June 13, 2010 3:36AM

I also believe that they should not change the grading standards for rare and key date coins. I forget which 1804 silver dollar it was but I seem to remember it went from VF to AU.

I wish all TPGs would do like ANACS and list the details grade and note the problems. They should even include explanations like weak strike when the grade is higher than the details seem to support. Otherwise it is hard to explain to people why an AU 50 1916 SLQ looks like a VF. As an aside, if most people believe strike is the most important element in the value of a coin, why are luster and wear taken more into account when grading a coin?

MidLifeCrisis · June 13, 2010 3:38AM

<< 

<< I would rather see a key date holdered like that with it's flaws showing , than one that has been "conserved" in an attempt to hide the problems. >>

I agree with that point entirely. It's also great that we now have "genuine" holders for PCGS and regular looking holders for problem coins from NGC. A truly rare coin with problems deserves to be certified even if the service can't grade it. And it also should be in an attractive holder. I don't know about you, but I thought that that the old NCS holders were really ugly and did a lot to make much harder to sell the coin. >>

... both of you.

Lowering the grading standards for rare and key date coins

Comments

Leave a Comment