Factors in AU-to-MS regrade?

[Oldtrader3]

That has always been the challenge in this hobby, ever since the days of F, VF, EF, MS grading. The challenge of "is it my coin or your coin" becomes the bottom line! Intellectually in a going concern type marketplace, it should not make any difference except the difference between bid and ask! In real life, everybody is overselling what the want to sell and undergrading everything that they look at to buy.

 

This causes liquidity issues in a market where no one plays unless they think that they can take advantage of someone else by manipulating buy and ask prices in order to beat the system.

 

Unfortunately, all this does is make coin market pricing unstable and the bid and ask system is pretty much a joke which no one believes in and is constantly trying to corrupt to make a little more profit. So the markets have little or no pricing integrity, especially among dealers. Watch the bid/ask fluctuations each week for common date, collector grade material. The movements certainly do not reflect an orderly market pricing movement. It is all opportunistic and no one believes in it beyond the last transaction.

 

There is no regulated coin market for most material except high end, closely held, gold and silver classical coins..

[bluel-migration]

Insightful points, OT3.

[coinman1794]

That has always been the challenge in this hobby, ever since the days of F, VF, EF, MS grading. The challenge of "is it my coin or your coin" becomes the bottom line!

 

It's not as bad as that. This has always been a problem in the coin market, and was the reason for third-party grading. Slabs have eliminated people selling BU coins as Gem when they were 63s, and cleaned XFs as Unc; but we still like to nitpick over hairline decisions between one grade and the next, or whether rub is wear or friction.

[Oldtrader3]

There still is an issue, particularly concerning AU58-MS62, 19th Century gold, where a one grade difference and eye appeal can make a 500% difference in price.

[Conder101]

Of course, he also thought head bumps had meaning and that stealing coins was OK.

As far as I know Sheldon was not a phrenologist. He thought a persons ability and behavior was determined by body structure. To this end the Freshman classes at several Ivy league schools had to submit to having nude photos taken for his research for many years. The photos were around for a LONG time until it was determined while she was First Lady that Hillary Clinton's photos was among them. And that many other prominent government officials were as well. The photos were quickly gathered up and destroyed.

[Kurtdog]

That has always been the challenge in this hobby, ever since the days of F, VF, EF, MS grading. The challenge of "is it my coin or your coin" becomes the bottom line!

It's not as bad as that. This has always been a problem in the coin market, and was the reason for third-party grading. Slabs have eliminated people selling BU coins as Gem when they were 63s, and cleaned XFs as Unc; but we still like to nitpick over hairline decisions between one grade and the next, or whether rub is wear or friction.

While third-party grading certainly addressed the problem of bias in first-party and second-party grades another thing it did was it stripped the hobby in large part of the necessity to know how to grade. Before third-party grading, one had to know how to grade. After third-party grading, all one has to know is what plusses and stars and stickers, et al., mean.

[Oldtrader3]

The TPG's need to evolve a bit more creatively in order to serve their customers. There are quite a few creative solutions for solving this issue of AU 62 coins versus MS62 coins but nobody is bothering to get involved or seems to care about committing problem solving oriented fixes, so I guess that collectors are stuck with the old, outdated Phrenologist created (for brown cents only) outdated solution for as long as the marketplace will not apply sufficient displeasure about being let down by the TPG's in classical coin grading. The present sytem is a joke for AU/BU grading standards.

 

The TPG's are more tied to present product technology than to truth and fairness for their customers. After all, it might cost someone's dime for profits to fix this and we can't have that now with this grading cash cow, can we? The TPG's have to milk this cow for every cent and if it means an absolutely inadequate grading standards which fail to describe many coin conditions properly, so be it!

 

Inertia in a bad existing system always trumps a better new systems in most companies, even though the two systems could coexist for some transition period to allow reslabbing as necessary. Can anybody who can make in this business solve this problem creatively? Do they lack the will or pluck to do something. I think they can but lack the courage and commitment to do so. When will they start?

 

This solution to grading would lessen worrying about public opinion and seemingly impregnable rules and immovable inertia in a less than even adequate grading system, let alone one that is even close to being an optimal system. The TPG's created this monster. They need to solve it. Do either of them have the will do do something about this situation?

 

If so, when do they plan to start on this issue? I have watched this present grading duplitious grading system fail many collectors for at least 15 years now. Nobody at the TPG's does anything to fix this broken system. Where is the creativity and commitment from the people that made all the money from grading our coins?

 

I was a changemaster manager and driver for better process and better customer service which gave us better sales, more revenue and a better bottom line. This hobby needs some forward motion and a couple brains com up with some decent ideas to design and implement a new grading system for coins that is not mired in antiquated tradition.

[coinman1794]

That has always been the challenge in this hobby, ever since the days of F, VF, EF, MS grading. The challenge of "is it my coin or your coin" becomes the bottom line!

It's not as bad as that. This has always been a problem in the coin market, and was the reason for third-party grading. Slabs have eliminated people selling BU coins as Gem when they were 63s, and cleaned XFs as Unc; but we still like to nitpick over hairline decisions between one grade and the next, or whether rub is wear or friction.

While third-party grading certainly addressed the problem of bias in first-party and second-party grades another thing it did was it stripped the hobby in large part of the necessity to know how to grade. Before third-party grading, one had to know how to grade. After third-party grading, all one has to know is what plusses and stars and stickers, et al., mean.

 

This is unfortunte, but it's also a failing on our part.

[coinman1794]

There still is an issue, particularly concerning AU58-MS62, 19th Century gold, where a one grade difference and eye appeal can make a 500% difference in price.

 

There are many more examples of large price differences that we could talk about. However, it is a very tiny thing that we are debating, i.e., the difference between rub and friction. In my opinion, the services are not doing enough to enforce the theoretical standards on the books (so to speak), where a decision is made on the spot whether or not its rub or friction, and the coin grades either AU58 or MS63 (it also used to be that a coin could not grade AU58 unless it had at least MS63 surface quality. Baggy sliders had to be AU55 or lower). Wear is dull and grainy, and friction is scraping action and generally shinny. The problem comes when toning and residue conceal these differences. Sometimes handling lines (or circulation lines) and rub in the fields proves that a coin was circulated...sometimes there are no extra clues and you have to make a decision.

[Oldtrader3]

All of these permutations of a AU55 to MS62 grade are based on inconsistant grading in some cases by the TPS and conflicting standards of what is acceptable to grade and what gets BB'ed. PCGS grades differently then NGC especially for old hairlines on the coin surfaces. PCGS will tolerate some of this, NGC won't. These factors all drive parallel but different pricing standards. How is a collector supposed to deal with these dichotomies?

 

WLH's are the perfect illustration of these problems. Look at circulated PCGS and NGC coins for hairlines. It becomes readily apparent that both TPG's have totally different standards for this attribute. What is right, what is the proper grade for thse coins. NGC will body bag them PCGS won't. Prices are high for both TPG slabs but they use different grading standards.

 

This is just one issue and not the main one of MS junk being graded the same as nice AU material. This is very confusing to the market and makes a mockery of grading standards. This is the foremost example of grading issues that clearly illustrates the need for a new grading system which does not call two completely different type of coins by the same grade (AU58 to MS62) in one big hopper. Good luck figuring this one out on how to grade if you are not an expert grader!.