Here is an analysis of grade_it's twelve Roosevelt dimes, graded by PCGS

[cpm9ball]

grade_it Here is my personal experience with PCGS. Link

 

Putting the CAM/UCAM aside for the moment, that's an 87.5% accuracy rate on grade for PCGS. I'm satisfied! There is no question about it. This survey proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that PCGS is doing their job right.

 

How many hairlines did you count with your electron microscope, Jaime?

 

Chris

[Schatzy]

grade_it Here is my personal experience with PCGS. Link

 

Putting the CAM/UCAM aside for the moment, that's an 87.5% accuracy rate on grade for PCGS. I'm satisfied! There is no question about it. This survey proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that PCGS is doing their job right.

 

How many hairlines did you count with your electron microscope, Jaime?

 

Chris

 

I am sorry but there is a big difference between going from UCAM to not even

cameo. It seems like anytime PCGS does bulk submissions they hand out the

PF69UCAM like its going out of style. This is not the first time that PCGS

has put the cameo or dcam on slabs that didn't deserve it!! There accuracy rate

was 25% in my eyes!!

 

What about the other 12 that I felt like didn't even deserve the grade that I didn't even send to NGC.

[JStull]

 

I am sorry but there is a big difference between going from UCAM to not even

cameo. It seems like anytime PCGS does bulk submissions they hand out the

PF69UCAM like its going out of style. This is not the first time that PCGS

has put the cameo or dcam on slabs that didn't deserve it!! There accuracy rate

was 25% in my eyes!!

 

What about the other 12 that I felt like didn't even deserve the grade that I didn't even send to NGC.

 

However, wouldn't you agree that the majority of modern PRs and some MS unc NIFC coins from the past 20 years are deserving of a 69UCAM grade from PCGS and/or NGC?

 

The process of producing the high satin finish relief and solid mirror fields can not be compared from the early 70s and earlier, IMHO as the Mint has improved on the technology and the process of producing these higher grade PRs.

[Schatzy]

However, wouldn't you agree that the majority of modern PRs and some MS unc NIFC coins from the past 20 years are deserving of a 69UCAM grade from PCGS and/or NGC?

.

 

After 1978 yes but before 1978 it is harder to find the ucam coins!!

[JStull]

However, wouldn't you agree that the majority of modern PRs and some MS unc NIFC coins from the past 20 years are deserving of a 69UCAM grade from PCGS and/or NGC?

.

 

After 1978 yes but before 1978 it is harder to find the ucam coins!!

 

I may not have worded that to say that but, I agree.

[grade it-migration]

grade_it Here is my personal experience with PCGS. Link

 

Putting the CAM/UCAM aside for the moment, that's an 87.5% accuracy rate on grade for PCGS. I'm satisfied! There is no question about it. This survey proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that PCGS is doing their job right.

 

How many hairlines did you count with your electron microscope, Jaime?

 

Chris

 

I had 450 body bagged for hairlines on one of my first PCGS submissions of 487 coins.. ask Miles. ( I am not creditable)

 

I looked at those 450 coins many times.

 

Order # Submission #

20399615 4153100

20399614 4184938

[grade it-migration]

 

deleted this post 1/23/11

[grade it-migration]

Off course there is nothing more defining of grading standards than a PCGS head grader at a PUBLIC forum on coin grading and PCGS submissions

 

A public forum with 14 to 18 local collectors present, in October 2010...

 

I asked the question at this public forum "what is the grading standards for a ms or proof 70 coin?

 

His answer was "A perfect coin. No defects, a nick of 5 hundredths of an inch, spots or other discoloration, scratches 5 hundreds of an inch long would not qualify as a 70 and extremely rare"

 

Asked then the same PCGS head grader what a pr69 standards where his answer "one or two defects less than 5 hundredths of an inch, no discoloration an almost perfect coin" ..

 

This is my grading standards I will use when grading and regrading coins until I read officially it is not. At which point all coins will be graded or regraded to what ever standard is official, .. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtml

 

If PCGS started in 1986 with one standard which I believe to be the true standard even today. PCGS published an abbreviated grading standard in 1997 which I believe to just a shortened version of the official grading standards for a quick reference.

The longer more detailed version today is on the official web site complete with PCGS header and advertisements and has no statement, the grading standards here are null and void.

 

If Franks statement is true (when I read officially they are) does that not make grading standards a moving target? How much confidence should we have in investing in rare coins if the grade standards move at the whim of a corporation?

I believe PCGS has not changed there grading standards, I believe they make mistakes on grading, but would never compromise their integrity from the original accepted grading standards they started with. That change would devastate many collections in value and undermine credibility of there product, these standards being lower or higher.

 

I believe the Grading standards in 1986, then published on the web in 1995 ( internet was in is infancy in 1995) are still in in effect. Perhaps if Franks post is true then he should have PCGS do a press release and inform everyone as to there new grading standards and the cancellation of the still down loadable one, with the PCGS header complete with links?

 

Of course that would mean if the standards now where lower or higher then previous graded standards, coins pre1997, would be graded lower or higher today.

 

Should upgrades that would keep up with today's new standards be free of charge if the change was a relaxing of standards?

I am sure many would not have coins downgraded for free if today's grading was tighter. Which causes a whole other can of worms..

Then how do you know when your coin was graded pre 1997 or after1997??

 

Frank the ramifications of this grading change are endless. Please say it ain't so

 

 

 

 

 

"This is my grading standards I will use when grading and regrading coins until I read officially it is not. At which point all coins will be graded or regraded to what ever standard is official", .. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtml

 

A test for the ray gun. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fopa%2Fpredawn%2FF93%2Fpcgs-coin8.txt&rct=j&q=PCGS%20%20FTC&ei=Q6A4TcfiEIP98AbD0vmeCg&usg=AFQjCNHAL-NEb0Ypoxgx769CEBSKSuQY3Q&sig2=0JlLIe75nVkC3ZnxB-7q8Q&cad=rja

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CGwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fopa%2Fpredawn%2FF93%2Fpcgs-coin8.txt&rct=j&q=PCGS%20FTc&ei=Jls6TYzqF8rUgQeg8uHECA&usg=AFQjCNHAL-NEb0Ypoxgx769CEBSKSuQY3Q&sig2=i6VB71dF4PaDXoP20qvJVg&cad=rja

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 17, 1990

 

 

FTC CHARGES COIN CERTIFICATION CO. MISREPRESENTS

OBJECTIVITY OF ITS COIN GRADING SERVICES;

COMPANY AGREES TO SETTLEMENT

 

 

The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Professional

Coin Grading Service, Inc. ("PCGS") misled consumers by falsely

claiming that it provides consistent, objective grading of coins

and that investment in PCGS-certified rare coins eliminates all

the risk associated with the grading of coins. Under a consent

decree filed August 16 in federal district court, PCGS is prohibit-

ed from making false representations about its objectivity, con-

sistency, or the liquidity of its coins, and from making deceptive

statements about the risks of investing in graded coins.

 

According to the FTC's Boston Regional Office, which handled

the investigation, PCGS was formed in August 1985 by seven promi-

nent rare coin dealers for the purpose of providing a consistent,

impartial, "certified" coin grading service upon which purchasers

and sellers of rare coins could depend. For a fee of approximately

$25 to $100 per coin, PCGS claimed that a coin would be impartially

and accurately graded by several of "the world's top grading

experts."

 

According to the complaint accompanying the consent decree,

PCGS falsely represented that its grading system is objective, con-

sistent, and unbiased; that an investment in PCGS coins eliminates

the risk associated with the grading of coins; that its coins can

be liquidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices; and that

it observes a "strict anti-self interest policy."

 

In fact, the complaint charges, PCGS has not provided object-

ive or consistent grading, and coin grading involves a certain

amount of subjectivity. Not all PCGS-certified coins can be li-

quidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices, according to

the complaint, and PCGS does not in all cases observe its "strict

anti-self interest policy." In addition, the complaint charges,

investment in PCGS-certified coins does not eliminate all the risk

associated with the grading of coins.

 

(More)

 

Under the terms of the consent decree, PCGS is subject to num-

erous prohibitions and requirements. PCGS is prohibited from mis-

representing that its grading is objective, consistent or unbiased,

or that an investment in PCGS-certified coins eliminates all risks

associated with the grading of coins. PCGS is also prohibited from

misrepresenting that PCGS-certified coins are liquid at reasonable,

competitive prices.

 

In addition, for a period of two years, PCGS must disclose in

all of its advertising and promotional material that "Certification

by PCGS does not guarantee protection against the normal risks

associated with potentially volatile markets." The decree further

requires that any claims about the safety or security of an invest-

ment in PCGS-certified coins be accompanied by a clear and conspic-

uous disclosure that the rare coin market is highly speculative and

subject to risk. PCGS must also clarify its liquidity claims with

a disclosure that the degree of liquidity, and the availability of

markets for certain coins, will vary from time to time.

 

The complaint and consent decree were filed in the U.S. Dis-

trict Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc. is based in Santa Ana,

Calif.

 

A consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not

constitute admission of a law violation. Consent decrees have the

force of law.

 

Copies of the complaint and consent decree are available from

the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th St. and Pennsyl-

vania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY 202-

326-2502.

 

# # #

 

MEDIA CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2180

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Interesting reading, Grade_it. Actually, I was a Medical Device Engineer and manufacturing executive for many years and statistically, no human grader can optically grade or inspect with a consistency greater than about 85% of the time, even with training and eye resting breaks, the human brain is just not that skilled at repetitive tasks and fatigue becomes an issue over time. This is why manual and visual rework never yielded us a better product than what was originally realeased. Computerised vision systems are the only method to assure consistant inspection.

 

Also, after many years of sending manually assembled Medical Devices through rework for quality control issues and lot inspection failure, we found that females are more consistent than males at doing repetitive tasks requiring visual examination and accuracy. They do them faster and with higher accuracy. I believe that most coin graders are male. It figures with the egos in this business.

 

Any warranties to the effect that any grading service is more accurate than proven statistical testing history by means of human inspection, at 85% accuracy, is deceptive advertising. This has been said before but still is not widely accepted by this industry which is technically quaint and outdated in many ways (i.e. bioburden contamination by graders).

[Michael Ellis-migration]

You speak as if grading standards are or should be so black and white/objective that they can be adhered to time and time again, and that if they are not, the assigned grade is a mistake. That is unrealistic, to say the least.

 

Actually, they could be much better than they are now if some simple procedures were followed to not contaminate coins with bio-detrius and maybe with some training standards for graders that would help put them all on the same page in terms of how they grade and what they grade. It is not unrealistic, it is ignorance and lack of production discipline in the grading industry. Graders should not be treated like artists, they should have standards and training to make them more consistant and better graders.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph above! I would, however, like to add some food for thought: We keep blaming much of this on the graders and indeed, some of the blame does lie with them. But, I believe most of the fingerprints, hairlines, etc. do come from the cleaning process and/or the assembly arm of the company. The people who perform these actions should be schooled on a regular basis. Other than the hairlines, other improper handling often goes undetectable for a length of time. Once visible, it is usually impossible to tell who is to blame. Yet, I know, much of the blame lies with the assembly process employees.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

 

This is where I have to take issue with this sampling. If the statistical population was 1K, 5K or 10K randomly selected coins to be examined, then the results might be totally different. Since these were pre-selected coins in such a small population, the results of the sampling should be deemed insufficient to make a determination.

 

Chris

 

I can personally attest to the fact these were a random sampling from over 3,000 PCGS graded Roosevelt dimes! These coins are far from the worst in those 3,000+ and some of them are actually some of the best of those that I did not feel make the grade on the holder! Yes, I have seen them all and the horror of the exercise is the most significant reason I helped to found Second Party Grading Services. What most of it amounts to is simple: "Speed kills!"

[Michael Ellis-migration]

Grade it, what we are saying is it is not a random sample. You have a very clear agenda, a very clear vendetta against the TPGs. Any sample you select will have a very strong selection bias. Being in QC for 40 years, you of all people should know that.

 

Again, I can attest to the fact this was a random sampling from 3,000+ PCGS graded Roosevelt dimes. I can also say Grade it does not have a bias against TPGs. If he did, why would he own so many TPG graded coins? Grade it loves TPG coins and wishes they were all graded correctly. So much so that until recently he had 90+ registry sets on PCGS! I am sorry folks but CAC gets it and so do I. In fact, I believe the abuse in grading is worse on the modern coins than the vintage coins!

[ldhair]

I really can't agree with this wide brush you are using Mike. "Most of the fingerprints, hairlines, etc. do come from the cleaning process and/or the assembly arm of the company"? This entire deal with you and grade it, looks more and more like a big sales pitch to help launch your new company. I looked at what you had at the show and walked away wondering about why you were saying what you did. I'm starting to understand now. Break it down Mike. What would you wish to discuss first. The MS coins or the Proofs? No more wide brush.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

This is essentially a repeat of what I posted previously, modified a little. Here is what I think would make for a really effective, unbiased test.

 

(1) Grade_it selects some number of high-grade dimes, say 100.

(2) Mail the dimes to me.

(3) I'll photograph the raw dimes in high resolution.

(4) I crack out all the dimes, keeping the original inserts. The high-res images ensure we can always match up the dimes with their original grades.

(5) I will submit them to PCGS. I have only once ever submitted coins to PCGS in my name - it was for four free coupons that someone gave me, so I don't have an particularly biased history with PCGS submissions.

(5a) Or, I could submit them under yet another name, say my neighbor's. That ensures ultimate anonymity.

(6) I'll do another coin-by-coin analysis, only this time, we'll have "prior" images to compare to.

 

This would be a pretty expensive test, and that's one of the reason such tests (really, it's an "audit") are probably never performed.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Several years ago CoinWorld conducted this test with 5 coins to all the most widely used services. It was only five coins due to the expense. I believe the conclussion was 5 coins are simply not enough. So, I would love to see this test done with 100 of Grade it's coins. It will be a costly endeavor though....

[Michael Ellis-migration]

I really can't agree with this wide brush you are using Mike. "Most of the fingerprints, hairlines, etc. do come from the cleaning process and/or the assembly arm of the company"? This entire deal with you and grade it, looks more and more like a big sales pitch to help launch your new company. I looked at what you had at the show and walked away wondering about why you were saying what you did. I'm starting to understand now. Break it down Mike. What would you wish to discuss first. The MS coins or the Proofs? No more wide brush.

 

Personally, I would prefer it be the proof coins as they are much easier to see the issues. Hairlines (and many of them come from coin counters) can be tricky to detect on MS coins (especially Roosevelt dimes due to their size) but once seen, they usually become blatantly obvious.

 

Anything I may have shown you at the show was a random sampling. If Grade it were to go back to his coins and pull the truly bad ones, not just random sample, every reader of this thread would be appalled!

 

Though I would understand if people believe I am trying to promote the new company, that is not the case here. Our point, not just Grade it and myself but other readers here as well, is there is a growing problem that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

 

I love this cartoon! Anybody know who drew it? Can I use it? Thanks so much for sharing this!

[ldhair]

Cool, proofs it is. The proofs that were sent to James had to have changed in the holder. Please tell us how you know PCGS caused this. Grade it stated he bought these holdered. How do we know who spit on them? It's not possible to know this.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

I only use a 10x microscope as I have stated many times

 

Since TPG graders don't use microscopes for grading, to my knowledge, what is the point?

 

How about this, you're pissed off because a bulk amount of coins you sent in to PCGS for grading and slabbing didn't come back with the grade you think they should have.

 

I've said this once, you get what you pay for, an opinion. So far there is nothing in James' report that PCGS is responsible for the hairlines on your coins as James would not be able to say with 100% certainty that what PCGS did caused the hairlines on your coins.

 

The only thing James confirms is there is presence of hairlines on some of the coins you sent to him.

 

 

.

 

What your saying is TPG do not use a loupe when grading? So why should customers? Whats on the holder is always the correct grade right?

 

 

 

 

In the same sense that you can not differentiate the difference between there, they're and their you have comprehension problems as well.

 

Where in my post did I state TPGs do not use loupes?

 

The difference between a loupe

 

and a microscope

 

in case you didn't/don't know the difference.

 

Graders at the TPGs generally use the tools they are most comfortable with but if they slow down their grading they are discouraged from using them. The naked eye, in my opinion, is not good enough to accurately and consistantly grade coins. On the largest coins, most of the time a grader will come close with the naked eye. Conversely, on the smaller coins some form of magnification is a must.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

Cool, proofs it is. The proofs that were sent to James had to have changed in the holder. Please tell us how you know PCGS caused this. Grade it stated he bought these holdered. How do we know who spit on them? It's not possible to know this.

 

Grade it said he has bought some and made some and I know that to be the truth. Additionally, I sent 100 MS coins I picked out of 20 rolls or so belonging to Gade it. One thing is for sure, NONE of them had hairline patches on them. Yet, when they were returned, many of them did.

[Michael Ellis-migration]

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so you and some others feel that there are a lot of over-graded coins out there and/or have different standards - we get it, already.

 

The fact that CAC doesn't sticker a coin doesn't necessarily mean they think it is over-graded. So, your quoted percentages with them are essentially meaningless.

 

Yes, it does pretty much mean they do not think the coin makes the grade! And, most dealers who submit to CAC had to go through a lot of coins to find the ones that make that 40% cut! The cream of the crop from the extensive searches goes to CAC and they agree with only apx 40% according to one poster. Again, CAC gets it!

[Oldtrader3]

Back to the magnification: most collectors carry a 6X or 7X loupe when they go to coin shows or even when visiting dealers. With the flourescent lights in most retail businesses, you can't see hairlines without magnification anyhow. I always carry at least a Bausch & Lomb 7X loupe set with me in a pocket when coin shopping or during serious looking. Using a loupe for inspection has been pretty standard for collectors and dealers at shows for the entire 50+ years that I have been collecting coins.

 

Considering that hairlines are the single most common cause of coin being downgraded by the TPG's, it makes sense to use a loupe. Just because graders don't use loupes or microscopes does not mean that it is not a good idea for use by a collector, if you don't want to buy hairlined coins. At home, I have a halogen light source to see hairlines and see no reason not to inspect coins with some magnification, especially in the bad light at some shows.

 

It helps to have reasonable standards on hairlines with magnification but a collector ought to be able to see what you are buying. This along with the fact that I am getting older, have astigmatism and can not, after (2) cataract operations, see as well without some magnification anyway.

[ldhair]

Cool, proofs it is. The proofs that were sent to James had to have changed in the holder. Please tell us how you know PCGS caused this. Grade it stated he bought these holdered. How do we know who spit on them? It's not possible to know this.

 

Grade it said he has bought some and made some and I know that to be the truth. Additionally, I sent 100 MS coins I picked out of 20 rolls or so belonging to Gade it. One thing is for sure, NONE of them had hairline patches on them. Yet, when they were returned, many of them did.

I'm still on proofs. I must have missed where grade it said he made some 70's.

Are any of those the ones that went to James? Can't find where he said that.

You didn't bother to answer my questions on the proofs and I don't blame you because there is little more you could say about how PCGS messed up these coins. If you are done with proofs I'll move on to MS.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Interesting event. This PCGS web page that was fully functional on the 17th has been deleted. Good thing it has been copied and printed with the a very resent date.. Only PCGS can answer that question which I am sure at some time they well..You may draw your own conclusions.

 

I reference page 4 of this post 4537738 - 01/17/11 04:25 AM

 

"This is my grading standards I will use when grading and regrading coins until I read officially it is not. At which point all coins will be graded or regraded to what ever standard is official", .. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtm

 

A test for the ray gun. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=we...xB-7q8Q&cad=rja

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 17, 1990

 

FTC CHARGES COIN CERTIFICATION CO. MISREPRESENTS OBJECTIVITY OF ITS COIN GRADING SERVICES; COMPANY AGREES TO SETTLEMENT

 

The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc. ("PCGS") misled consumers by falsely claiming that it provides consistent, objective grading of coins and that investment in PCGS-certified rare coins eliminates all the risk associated with the grading of coins. Under a consent decree filed August 16 in federal district court, PCGS is prohibited from making false representations about its objectivity, consistency, or the liquidity of its coins, and from making deceptive statements about the risks of investing in graded coins. According to the FTC's Boston Regional Office, which handled the investigation, PCGS was formed in August 1985 by seven prominent rare coin dealers for the purpose of providing a consistent, impartial, "certified" coin grading service upon which purchasers and sellers of rare coins could depend. For a fee of approximately $25 to $100 per coin, PCGS claimed that a coin would be impartially and accurately graded by several of "the world's top grading experts."

 

According to the complaint accompanying the consent decree, PCGS falsely represented that its grading system is objective, consistent, and unbiased; that an investment in PCGS coins eliminates the risk associated with the grading of coins; that its coins can be liquidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices; and that it observes a "strict anti-self interest policy."

 

In fact, the complaint charges, PCGS has not provided objective or consistent grading, and coin grading involves a certain amount of subjectivity. Not all PCGS-certified coins can be liquidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices, according to the complaint, and PCGS does not in all cases observe its "strict anti-self interest policy." In addition, the complaint charges, investment in PCGS-certified coins does not eliminate all the risk associated with the grading of coins.

 

Under the terms of the consent decree, PCGS is subject to numerous prohibitions and requirements. PCGS is prohibited from misrepresenting that its grading is objective, consistent or unbiased, or that an investment in PCGS-certified coins eliminates all risks associated with the grading of coins. PCGS is also prohibited from misrepresenting that PCGS-certified coins are liquid at reasonable, competitive prices.

 

In addition, for a period of two years, PCGS must disclose in all of its advertising and promotional material that "Certification by PCGS does not guarantee protection against the normal risks associated with potentially volatile markets." The decree further requires that any claims about the safety or security of an investment in PCGS-certified coins be accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the rare coin market is highly speculative and subject to risk. PCGS must also clarify its liquidity claims with a disclosure that the degree of liquidity, and the availability of markets for certain coins, will vary from time to time.

 

The complaint and consent decree were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc. is based in Santa Ana, Calif.

 

A consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute admission of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law.

 

Copies of the complaint and consent decree are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY 202-326-2502.

 

# # #

 

MEDIA CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2180

I had almost completely forgotten about this!

 

Reformatted to read a little easier.

[James_OldeTowne]

I was a Medical Device Engineer and manufacturing executive for many years and statistically, no human grader can optically grade or inspect with a consistency greater than about 85% of the time, even with training and eye resting breaks, the human brain is just not that skilled at repetitive tasks and fatigue becomes an issue over time.

That is a fascinating statistic, if accurate, because it happens to coincide exactly with what I perceive as the "error rate" in third-party grading. I have roughly estimated that 10% - 12% of certified coins are overagraded, and 3% - 5% are undergraded.

 

Of course, the latter number is apt to be low as such coins are quickly cracked out and resubmitted.

[James_OldeTowne]

Cool, proofs it is. The proofs that were sent to James had to have changed in the holder. Please tell us how you know PCGS caused this. Grade it stated he bought these holdered. How do we know who spit on them? It's not possible to know this.

Take a look

. It discusses "secure plus" certification. What I find frightening about this is the highly excessive manual handling of the coins being shown.

 

The process is fraught with opportunity to smear body parts all over the coin, and it's just one stage in their grading process!!

[MarkFeld]

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so you and some others feel that there are a lot of over-graded coins out there and/or have different standards - we get it, already.

 

The fact that CAC doesn't sticker a coin doesn't necessarily mean they think it is over-graded. So, your quoted percentages with them are essentially meaningless.

 

Yes, it does pretty much mean they do not think the coin makes the grade! And, most dealers who submit to CAC had to go through a lot of coins to find the ones that make that 40% cut! The cream of the crop from the extensive searches goes to CAC and they agree with only apx 40% according to one poster. Again, CAC gets it!

 

You are wrong on this. CAC categorizes coins as A, B or C and they don't sticker the C coins. That doesn't mean they think the C coins are over-graded,

 

Yes, they reject coins for problems and/or for being over-graded, but also, because they are low-end (C coins) for the assigned grade. Below is an excerpt from an interview that Maurice Rosen did with John Albanese. Sorry, I choose to believe John Albanese over you:

 

"MR: Given all this John, why did you start CAC?

 

JA: I felt we were basically in a death spiral. I saw the “C” coins dragging down the prices of “A” and “B” coins. Throughout my career I’ve always tried to buy the “A” and “B” coins. I felt that someone just had to push back. I felt strongly that the “A” and “B” coins needed to trade on their own, to be decoupled from the “C” coins. I felt the best way to accomplish that was to start CAC. Earlier in the interview I was critical of The Greysheet for contributing to gradeflation. The Greysheet changed ownership in 1984. Since then I’m glad to say there’s been a decided improvement. They’ve been much more responsive, reporting the prices as they see them.

 

MR: What do you hope to achieve with CAC?

 

JA: We will ignore the less than “B” coins. We know it’s going to be hard but we’re barely in the first inning and have achieved some impressive success. Greysheet bids are strong since we started, but Bluesheet prices (sigh-unseen bids as opposed to the Greysheet’s sight-seen bids) have not been as strong. We’re already seeing a start to the decoupling we hoped to achieve. We expect volatility in prices; what we shouldn’t expect is volatility in grading. That’s our mission.

 

MR: Have you encountered any obstacles in developing and carrying out your mission?

 

JA: Clearly, there have been obstacles from the dealers selling the “C” coins. They are starting to encounter problems selling their coins because we’re making markets in “A” and “B” coins, not “C” coins. However, the bigger problem is people not fully understanding our program. That’s probably my fault for taking a low-key approach to this point, not aggressively advertising and marketing CAC. That will be addressed soon enough, and your advisory, Maurice, will be a big help to us. Our efforts have been to get the product out there, encourage submissions, allowing the product to speak for itself. The market will eventually determine how successful we’ll be.

 

I have dealers calling me telling me they don’t need me to tell them their coin is PQ. I tell them they’re right, but the problem is the guy a few tables down from them has coins for sale at much lower prices then they do. Their nicer coins need to distinguished from the pack. I’m not disparaging the other coins; after all, a “C” is a passing grade. I just don’t believe that a minority of less-than-solid-grade coins coming out of the services should dictate the entire marketplace."

 

 

[grade it-migration]

Interesting reading, Grade_it. Actually, I was a Medical Device Engineer and manufacturing executive for many years and statistically, no human grader can optically grade or inspect with a consistency greater than about 85% of the time, even with training and eye resting breaks, the human brain is just not that skilled at repetitive tasks and fatigue becomes an issue over time. This is why manual and visual rework never yielded us a better product than what was originally realeased. Computerised vision systems are the only method to assure consistant inspection.

 

Also, after many years of sending manually assembled Medical Devices through rework for quality control issues and lot inspection failure, we found that females are more consistent than males at doing repetitive tasks requiring visual examination and accuracy. They do them faster and with higher accuracy. I believe that most coin graders are male. It figures with the egos in this business.

 

Any warranties to the effect that any grading service is more accurate than proven statistical testing history by means of human inspection, at 85% accuracy, is deceptive advertising. This has been said before but still is not widely accepted by this industry which is technically quaint and outdated in many ways (i.e. bioburden contamination by graders).

 

To make a further point. If one grader can be 85% accurate how about a combination of 3 opinions on the same coin.

 

When I started collecting and submitting TPG coins, I did my research as to what TPG company would be the best.

 

This research was a combination of chat rooms and internet posts and the web sites of the TPG completed listing from eBay sales and the host TPG website..

 

What impressed me the most, was the three opinions of coin grading offered by PSGS.

 

MY thought was that errors would cut to a minimum with this excellent QC program.

 

If one grader got 85% correct the other grader not knowing his results would be 85% correct the disagreement would be determined by the finalizer..The errors would be at >1%

 

Where the finalizer comes into play, would have to be before encapsulation.. as his title suggests to finalize the grade. with results from the 2 independent grades and his.

 

Then a final check after encapsulation where all QC problems from the encapsulating process are checked. Things like correct date mm rotation of the coin, foreign matter encapsulated and all that the TPG would want not to ship to its submitters..Thus a minimum of four QC programs...

 

 

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

The results of a grader with one finalizer, would not be probably greater than about 94%. However, there is some noise in this estimate, based on how long the finalizer spends looking at the coin. If the finalizer looks for much less time than the grader there would be much less benefit.

 

I am going out on a limb and stating that human grading, even with a finalizer looking at the coins 6% average will still be incorrectly graded. Using a sample base of 80 audit samples per shift of manually built widgets we never got better than about 94% with double rework. This is why my company spent well over a million dollars developing their first optical computerized final inspection systems for medical widgets with a limited attribute inspection. Fewer attributes than a grader looks for which is another issue with visual grading. We never ever, on manual inspection with double audits, got better than 96% product quality by any manual inspection method, ever unless it was an accident.

 

On IV saline bottle inspection lines (glass bottles) where 3 inspectors each, looked at each bottle passing for about 3 seconds (looking for particulate) we found that this inspection was only about 94% accurate statistically for finding particulate above 40 microns with halogen light in liter bottles. These people were trained, retrained and recertified each month in their training which is more than can be said for coin graders who are not certified statistically at all! Plus, graders are not trained at all to be uniform in the sense that we trained and tested our in-process QA inspectors.

 

I would venture to say that humans under less than optimal conditions never get better than about 94-95% inspection accuracy. In any case, even with optimal lighting and 3X lamps, I do not believe that humans can catch more than about 97%, just based on 3-sigma human sampling error rates. Crack-out-artists would go broke if the odds were better than 94%. Just consider some of the stuff, like potato-chip-spit-balls, that get through the process and are never caught and then tell me they do a good job when grading coins!?!?

[WoodenJefferson]

Can you imagine going into work on Monday morning, say after "Super Sunday" and have them set a Green Monster box in front of you and say, "OK, get to work!"

[Oldtrader3]

Exactly, Woody. Fatigue, boredom and just human short-attention spans are the enemy of inspection precision.