Understanding Uncirculated coin grading is tough.... 1 1

[Insider]

4 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

Let's go one at a time...#1

“There is clear synergy between our brands and what we provide to the market. Data shows that the majority of CAC-stickered coins are PCGS certified, and these coins often boast record-setting auction prices. There is clear demand here,” further explained Charville [Brett] when discussing the decision-making process.

 "PCGS is looking forward to working with Albanese to further develop the Set Registry program and other collector-focused initiatives."

https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-launches-exclusive-cac-set-registry

Thanks for the reply.  I'll look forwarding to reading more.  However, this is puzzling: "There is clear synergy between our brands and what we provide to the market.  This indicates that you are either employed by PCGS or CAC.  Which is it?  The fact that you don't post much indicates you are a very busy VIP.  Care to come out of the closet?   

 

OK, your reply supports what I hear (and posted) that a CAC sticker on a PCGS coin will generally bring a higher price than that coin in any other slab.  Many folks think that PCGS is the #1 TPGS - possibly for that reason alone.  Many folks including myself think they are #2 when all things are considered. Nevertheless, I'd want my coin in the slab with the most potential profit too.   

I wonder what ""PCGS is looking forward to working with Albanese to further develop the Set Registry program." actually means.  Sounds like a bunch of "advertising fluff" to me.   In fact, I should think it would be a good idea for anyone to look forward to speaking with JA if they were going to use the CAC name on a Registry offering.  IMO, Mr. Charville came up with another great marketing idea?   Maybe JA will design a new pink CAC sticker for the new PCGS set.

[RWB]

Souse. Headcheese. Tripe. Mountain Oysters. etc.

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

I wonder what ""PCGS is looking forward to working with Albanese to further develop the Set Registry program." actually means.  

It takes one to know one. According to the site cited, Albanese was one of the original graders at PCGS. It seems to me the PCGS/CAC Set Registry is a natural progression or resumption of their previous collaboration.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

It takes one to know one. According to the site cited, Albanese was one of the original graders at PCGS. It seems to me the PCGS/CAC Set Registry is a natural progression or resumption of their previous collaboration.

Maybe Laura Sperber needs to sprinkle New Jersey holy water on them too. It’s dipped out of the East River at Hoboken, I hear. 

[Cat Bath]

8 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Maybe Laura Sperber needs to sprinkle New Jersey holy water on them too. It’s dipped out of the East River at Hoboken, I hear. 

I am a lowly collector and have no profit motive.

My skills are limited to saints within a very narrow grade range.

I am not a professional grader nor do I possess the ability to ever be one.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, Cat Bath said:

I am a lowly collector and have no profit motive.

My skills are limited to saints within a very narrow grade range.

I am not a professional grader nor do I possess the ability to ever be one.

I’m a pretty good grader of non-gold coins, if Brian Silliman’s course is any indication. Where I do miss most often is on gold - Saints, Libertys, Indians, the whole shmeer. I am too tough on them according to the modern TPGS standards. But then again, that seems to be a frequent issue with a whole lot of folks on this board. I have tried a system that works for me on MS range gold - give it my honest non-gold opinion, then add two points.

[RWB]

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I’m a pretty good grader of non-gold coins, if Brian Silliman’s course is any indication. Where I do miss most often is on gold - Saints, Libertys, Indians, the whole shmeer. I am too tough on them according to the modern TPGS standards. But then again, that seems to be a frequent issue with a whole lot of folks on this board. I have tried a system that works for me on MS range gold - give it my honest non-gold opinion, then add two points.

If you are consistent between coins of similar size, then you are not "too tough" but the TPGs are too lax and inconsistent. It is the same story with very rare pieces or famous collections.

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

If you are consistent between coins of similar size, then you are not "too tough" but the TPGs are too lax and inconsistent. It is the same story with very rare pieces or famous collections.

Coming from someone who preaches objectivity and accurately measurable results over time, that comment surprises me. Perhaps he’s not consistent between coins of similar size. Perhaps no one is. But even if he is, how do you know he’s not also “too tough”?

[VKurtB]

14 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Coming from someone who preaches objectivity and accurately measurable results over time, that comment surprises me. Perhaps he’s not consistent between coins of similar size. Perhaps no one is. But even if he is, how do you know he’s not also “too tough”?

When I very seldom miss matching the grade on silver or copper coins in an ANA grading set, but my honest opinion consistently runs about two points low on gold coins, you tell me, what’s going on? My only theory is that more contact marks are permitted on gold coins for a given grade.

Edited August 28, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

When I very seldom miss matching the grade on silver or copper coins in an ANA grading set, but my honest opinion consistently runs about two points low on gold coins, you tell me, what’s going on? My only theory is that more contact marks are permitted on gold coins for a given grade.

Without seeing the coins and your grading opinions, I have no way of knowing. Even then, it would be my subjective opinion.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Without seeing the coins and your grading opinions, I have no way of knowing. Even then, it would be my subjective opinion.

It is the set used by the ANA for its own grading courses, the ones they charge $300-$400 bucks for, specifically chosen because the consensus is that they are graded correctly.

Edited August 28, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

Besides, the instructor, Brian Silliman, states it outright in the course in words - “gold coins are just more liberally graded regarding contact marks than other coins”. No ambiguity. 

[Insider]

19 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

It takes one to know one. According to the site cited, Albanese was one of the original graders at PCGS. It seems to me the PCGS/CAC Set Registry is a natural progression or resumption of their previous collaboration.

He was also the founder of NGC.  So what.  

Since a CAC sticker is another opinion that the coin is graded correctly by COMMERCIAL STANDARDS, an exclusively CAC Registry Set is a good idea.  Therefore, a set made up entirely of CAC slabs might tend to be ranked higher than another set. 

Don't you get it, it's a game.  They once called it "whist."  the fellow with the higher grade Large cent won.  Now the fellow with the highest combination of grades in his set wins. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Insider

[Insider]

15 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Maybe Laura Sperber needs to sprinkle New Jersey holy water on them too. It’s dipped out of the East River at Hoboken, I hear. 

Probably not a good time to be posting "Laura" jokes.  I hear she is not herself at this time.  She has left her "mark" on the industry and hopefully she'll be OK.

[MarkFeld]

22 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Besides, the instructor, Brian Silliman, states it outright in the course in words - “gold coins are just more liberally graded regarding contact marks than other coins”. No ambiguity. 

I think he’s correct in a lot of cases and incorrect in many others. Regardless, that tells me very little about how consistent your grading is, with respect to the objective, large sampling that I thought RWB desires.

[jtryka]

[Henri Charriere]

19 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

I am a lowly collector and have no profit motive.

My skills are limited to saints within a very narrow grade range.

I am not a professional grader nor do I possess the ability to ever be one.

There is no question but that RWB has managed to touch a raw nerve with this subject matter.

If I were honest -- a herculean task for a sometime troll -- I must throw in with Cat Bath, unreservedly.

I too am an otherwise unremarkable collector with no profit -- or, for that matter, ulterior motive.

My suspect forte is grounded in unattributable speculation and thrives on unconfirmed rumor.

My cowardice is exemplified by my reluctance to resubmit to PCGS two roosters I own for reconsideration, my MS-63 which is by far superior in appearance to my MS-64 in every objective respect, for no other reason than doing so may offend or embarrass the initial grader(s).  I seriously doubt the most maligned member ln this Forum would be similarly constrained.  

All things considered, coin grading is a skill, not a science.  My trust, accordingly, in all TPGS is implicit and unwavering.  Yes, you heard it here first.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Quintus Arrius
Rewording

[RWB]

Adopting a more empirical approach to assessing the surface condition of a coin, means that nothing is lost when employees resign, die, or get eaten by the slabbing machinery. Training of humans can be concentrated on areas where people are the better evaluators, and use can focus on truly rare and unusual pieces.

[Conder101]

On 8/28/2020 at 2:55 PM, Insider said:

They once called it "whist."  the fellow with the higher grade Large cent won.

It's still called Whist, and they still have Whist matches from time to time at the EAC conventions, but it seems to be more prevalent among the half cent collectors.  But several of the prominent half cent specialists have passed on so it may be awhile before the next Whist match.  The competition goes variety by variety.  Scoring went as 1 point for having the variety, and 1 point to the person who had the finer coin.  Typically there would be other collectors watching and not participating and they would be the judges of which piece was the finest.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Conder101

[Insider]

On 8/28/2020 at 11:37 AM, RWB said:

If you are consistent between coins of similar size, then you are not "too tough" but the TPGs are too lax and inconsistent. It is the same story with very rare pieces or famous collections.

 Smaller coins are graded differently than larger coins.  Do you know why?   Rare and famous coins are also graded differently.

 

[RWB]

The specifications for each grade must be identical. The provenance or assumed rarity are immaterial.

RE: "Rare and famous coins are also graded differently."

This is called "greedy grading" or "pump the chump." Its only purpose is to increase the perception of value so that sellers can get greater profit by hyping the so-called grade.

[MarkFeld]

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

The specifications for each grade must be identical. The provenance or assumed rarity are immaterial.

RE: "Rare and famous coins are also graded differently."

This is called "greedy grading" or "pump the chump." Its only purpose is to increase the perception of value so that sellers can get greater profit by hyping the so-called grade.

With respect to such coins, it appears that the main motive on the part of the grading companies is to get them into their holders, and keep them out of the competition’s holders.

[RWB]

8 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

With respect to such coins, it appears that the main motive on the part of the grading companies is to get them into their holders, and keep them out of the competition’s holders.

Agreed, although possibly not the main motive.

[Insider]

34 minutes ago, RWB said:

The specifications for each grade must be identical. The provenance or assumed rarity are immaterial.

RE: "Rare and famous coins are also graded differently."

This is called "greedy grading" or "pump the chump." Its only purpose is to increase the perception of value so that sellers can get greater profit by hyping the so-called grade.

I think the additional reason rare coins are graded differently is because THEIR VALUE continues to increase.  Collectors don't wish to pay millions of dollars for a coin formerly graded n XF/AU. 

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, Insider said:

I think the additional reason rare coins are graded differently is because THEIR VALUE continues to increase.  Collectors don't wish to pay millions of dollars for a coin formerly graded n XF/AU. 

But their values don’t necessarily increase. Where have you been the past several years? 

[Insider]

39 minutes ago, RWB said:

The specifications for each grade must be identical. The provenance or assumed rarity are immaterial.

RE: "Rare and famous coins are also graded differently."

This is called "greedy grading" or "pump the chump." Its only purpose is to increase the perception of value so that sellers can get greater profit by hyping the so-called grade.

I think I under stand your point.  However, the specifications for each grade are specific - just NOT identical.  Additionally, a largish hit on the face of a Morgan dollar would destroy the face of a dollar gold piece.  

[VKurtB]

Another quote from Brian:

 

"In the case of the truly great rarities, such as 1913 Liberty nickels, they aren't so much graded as 'ranked'." Discuss.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Another quote from Brian:

 

"In the case of the truly great rarities, such as 1913 Liberty nickels, they aren't so much graded as 'ranked'." Discuss.

I hear that a lot and it appears to be true. I want to stress that the following are merely my opinions...

While it’s counterintuitive to me, I believe that the ultra rarities are graded more liberally than coins of lesser value and importance. The major grading companies want the numismatic prizes in their holders and play a game of who’s willing to grade them higher in order to achieve that.

If I remember correctly, one particularly conspicuous and important example is the King of Siam 1834 Proof set. I believe that over the years, a number of the coins in the set have migrated between PCGS and NGC and have received grade increases of one or more points. Never mind, that it’s not like they started out with conservative grades, either. There are other examples of significant grade increases for1804 Dollars,1913 Liberty Nickels and so on. 

Regarding ranking of the ultra rarities - that’s a lot easier to do (with grades) when there are only between 5 and15 known examples of a particular coin, than when there are dozens, hundreds or thousands. After all, in a perfect world, wouldn’t all coins be ranked correctly by accurate grades?

Edited September 5, 2020 by MarkFeld

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Another quote from Brian:

 

"In the case of the truly great rarities, such as 1913 Liberty nickels, they aren't so much graded as 'ranked'." Discuss.

There are still only five, right? A finite number. I assume all are in mint state condition and referred to as specimens whose provenance is uncontested.  [If I may, I too can claim to have one of only two known specimens of a specific coin, with a specific grade, with none graded higher, as of this writing subject to change in the blink of an eye should any of the other 4+ million coins of that vintage surface and be submitted for certification.] 

I was unaware of the connection between the son of Hetty Green, the so-called Witch of Wall Street, and all five 1913 V nickels which he owned up until his death in 1936. It was she who, on account of her extreme wealth, was refused service at a city hospital resulting in the amputation of her son's gangrenous leg. If you had not requested a discussion of rankings -- an interesting thought, I never would have uncovered that bit of trivia though I am somewhat familiar with the stories of both the coin and miser.

[VKurtB]

You're close, QA. I believe all 5 are graded as proofs, not Specimens, and the numbers go as low as 50, I believe, for the specimen that the ANA drags around to every convention. Unless I'm mistaken, the quality order is (just from pure recollection):

1) the Eliasberg

2) the Smithsonian

3) the Hawaii 5-0 specimen

4) the "lost" one that showed up in Baltimore

5) the ANA specimen

 

Correct me if that's not right, please.