Marketing Grading 101

[Kurtdog]

No, that's not a misspelling. It's rather meant to suggest, first comes the marketing, then comes the grading. That's how it works. In other words, you don't swallow my marketing, and I don't think I want you participating with your thoughts in my forums. On the other hand, you do swallow it, and all that remains is for me to keep feeding you a steady diet of it.

 

As you might, already, have observed, it's a manipulative approach to grading. At any rate, it's an interesting concept. Don't you think?

[BillJones]

It's been my observation that one gets booted ATS for criticizing their product in direct way. So far as grading goes I’m never been banned or had a warning though I do watch what I say these days.

 

For example it was my observation that the major TPGs changed the standards for circulated 1916-D Mercury dimes. In the old days the vertical lines on the ax handle had to be complete to qualify for a coin in Fine condition. They could and would be weak on a coin graded Fine, but they were supposed to be there. For VF coins those lines were supposed to be strong.

 

Years ago I had a customer leave me a want list for a 1916-D Mercury dime in VF. We looked at the Gray Sheet prices and the numbers seemed low. It didn’t take me long to figure out why. What had been VG was now VF, and if you wanted to get a 1916-D with all the lines, you had to buy an EF or better.

 

I have written about this, although not lately, and never had a problem. So I guess you can judge this little story from there.

 

BTW this general lowering of standards applied to other key date coins as well, but for the 1916-D Mercury dime it was across the board. For other coins, like 1877 Indian cents, I’ve seen variations. Some of those coins were graded by the old standards; some were not.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

For example it was my observation that the major TPGs changed the standards for circulated 1916-D Mercury dimes. In the old days the vertical lines on the ax handle had to be complete to qualify for a coin in Fine condition. They could and would be weak on a coin graded Fine, but they were supposed to be there. For VF coins those lines were supposed to be strong.

 

Years ago I had a customer leave me a want list for a 1916-D Mercury dime in VF. We looked at the Gray Sheet prices and the numbers seemed low. It didn’t take me long to figure out why. What had been VG was now VF, and if you wanted to get a 1916-D with all the lines, you had to buy an EF or better.

 

 

The question that really causes the most controversy I think, is whether that change was deliberate and directed, or if it was a gradual loosening of standards.

[BillJones]

The question that really causes the most controversy I think, is whether that change was deliberate and directed, or if it was a gradual loosening of standards.

 

I noted this a bit over 10 years ago, and at the time it seemed instantaneous. I don’t recall ever seeing a circulated grade 1916-D Mercury dime in a rattle holder or an NGC black liner or “fatty” holder. If I had, I might be able to speak about the slow change in standards issue.

 

At the time my observation was that the TPGs were reasonablely strict when they graded Mint State coins, but they were loose when it came to the circulated grades. I was not the only dealer at the time to note this. A couple of other guys agreed with me when I brought the subject up to them.

 

More recently I’ve seen some tightening with coins like the 1877 Indian cent, the 1909-S Indian, key date Lincoln cents and Morgan dollar, but the lower standards for the 1916-D Mercury dime have remained in place.

 

[Arizonadesertrat]

When did AU55-58 coins begin to appear in low-MS slabs?

[FishyOne]

When did AU55-58 coins begin to appear in low-MS slabs?

 

Now that has been going on for many years. I'm interested in hearing what some veterans have to say on this one.

[BillJones]

When did AU55-58 coins begin to appear in low-MS slabs?

 

That is a market grade issue.

 

I'll tell you this. I have gladly paid low end Mint State money for early U.S. coins (1793 to 1807) in AU-55 and more often AU-58. To me a pretty AU is worth more than a technical grade low end Mint State piece.

 

[jom]

To me a pretty AU is worth more than a technical grade low end Mint State piece.

 

Agree...they always has been and always will be.

 

The problem is that many collectors separate MS from circ coins like circs are some sort of disease. I look at wear as just another detriment to the state of the coins like lack of luster, or lack of strike or bag marks. The "market" for whatever reason values a MS coin to be worth more regardless of how it looks. Why? I haven't a clue but I still think the right AU pieces are worth more...to each their own I guess.

 

jom

[BKW]

I'll tell you this. I have gladly paid low end Mint State money for early U.S. coins (1793 to 1807) in AU-55 and more often AU-58. To me a pretty AU is worth more than a technical grade low end Mint State piece.

 

Agreed. I usually collect mid and high MS coins, but when one is out of my price range, I will gladly chose and pay for a nice AU55-58 coin than a dog of an MS60-62.

[Kurtdog]

I'll tell you this. I have gladly paid low end Mint State money for early U.S. coins (1793 to 1807) in AU-55 and more often AU-58. To me a pretty AU is worth more than a technical grade low end Mint State piece.

I believe it's the different set of grading standards that make for that, Bill. As such you take that touch of circulation wear here and there off that AU-58 and that coin many times goes straight up to around MS-64 bypassing those lower, more scathed, MS grades. For that reason I very much admire the high AU grades, too (even a lot of the high EF grades). That's just my style, now, gang. At the same time I understand and respect the rationale of others who'd prefer the low MS grades (meaning, MS-60/61) to those.

 

PS: How's that for diplomacy?