CACG has arrived. Loudly knocking. Will NGC and PCGS answer the door? Do you think NGC and PCGS will counter CACG and their "premium certification" services with their own new services or certifications? 2 2

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/28/2024 at 6:07 PM, Coinbuf said:

There have been a few entertaining threads recently on the PCGS forum with a very recently former PCGS grader weighing in on those discussions, his comments and thought processes make it very clear just how much PCGS has embraced market grading.   Oddly while NGC did some damage to its reputation by being the first to embrace market grading, I would say that PCGS leads the charge in that respect today.

And yet I direct you to the late-2022 CoinWeek article with John Albanese in which he discusses how it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to not market grade in 1985 when a particular Gold Type Set pulled a Ralph Kramden and went bang-zoom-to the Moon.  

You HAD to market grade or you basically went on sabatical for a few months or years -- or went out of business.  That's not me saying that -- it's John Albanese himself who I think is a CRITIC of market grading -- and yet he says he understood why it happened, and not for any nefarious reasons. 

On 3/28/2024 at 6:07 PM, Coinbuf said:

While it is far too early to make any long-term calls, as I explain in my comments above CACG's grading is not like the big two.   CACG does put a stronger emphasis on not rewarding rub, be it from circulation of from stacking/cabinet friction, with MS grades which is a very different strategy than the big two.   Likewise unoriginal surfaces are not rewarded at CACG where the big two have been prone to looking the other way in the past.

I wonder how much time CACG graders are spending per coin compared to the existing TPGs.  You can't tell me that you can look closely for rub and unoriginal surfaces in the 10-15 seconds that these guys are allotted per coin.  Not every human is a Mr. Spock, a Data, or even a Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fischer....our minds aren't machines that can act like clockwork for hours on end without making a mistake.

On 3/28/2024 at 6:07 PM, Coinbuf said:

I 100% agree with you that the coin hobby/business has been heavily financialized and that has in part been facilitated by market grading.   In all honesty, the people we see like mustacheman, and vasquez are the products of this financialization, and that is partly why I give them no quarter or respect.   People like them do not present, to me at least, that they are here to learn or collect only strip-mine.

Who are mustache and vazquez, never heard of them. 

I agree with the general thrust of your financialization argument -- I see it in the financial world with the proliferation of ETFs and other gambling-like instruments.  But again, the "good" kind of market grading that Albanese described is at least understandable, if not forgiveable.  At least the way he described it.

I guess you could say I'm more for CONSISTENCY in grading as opposed to preferring either hardcore ANA grading or market grading.

Edited March 29 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

So if I hear you correctly, you seem to be saying that JA has been caught talking out of both sides of his mouth. “Gambling in Casablanca? Rick, I’m shocked!” Say it ain’t so!

[Mike Meenderink]

Throwing a wrench in my own thread. NGC Green Label Tier. HMMMM? A CAC equivalent? Lets discuss...

[Mike Meenderink]

Posted on 3/31/2021

A major numismatic dealer is carefully selecting coins to be certified with the NGC Green Label and then placing bids on them, supporting a robust, two-way market for NGC Green Label coins.

RARCOA, a prominent and well-capitalized firm, is carefully selecting coins for quality, eye appeal and other desirable traits to be certified with a new Green Label from Numismatic Guaranty Corporation® (NGC®). This dealer is also making markets in NGC Green Label coins by placing sight unseen bids on them on dealer-to-dealer electronic trading platforms.

The coins selected by RARCOA for the NGC Green Label possess a variety of collector-friendly attributes, including attractive eye appeal, a strong strike, impressive luster or great color. For example, a Morgan Dollar with cartwheel luster, a Peace Dollar with a sharp strike and swirling luster or a gold coin with pleasing color may be eligible for the NGC Green Label.

Importantly, RARCOA provides substantial market support for NGC Green Label coins by placing bids on them on dealer-to-dealer electronic trading platforms.

An 1881-S Morgan Dollar graded NGC MS 67 and a 1922-D Peace Dollar graded NGC MS 66, both with the NGC Green Label. Click images to enlarge.

 

Collectors can be confident that NGC Green Label coins have been graded by NGC’s team of experts according to the internationally recognized NGC Grading Scale. All coins encapsulated with the NGC Green Label are backed by the comprehensive NGC Guarantee of authenticity and grade. This financial guarantee enhances the safety, value and liquidity of NGC-certified coins.

“When collectors see a coin certified with the NGC Green Label, they will know that it has received additional scrutiny and is supported by a robust, two-way market,” says Mark Salzberg, NGC Chairman and Grading Finalizer. “As always, collectors will also benefit from NGC’s accurate and consistent grading, state-of-the-art holder and industry-leading guarantee of authenticity and grade.”

“By identifying coins that are worthy of distinction, the NGC Green Label makes it easier for collectors to recognize, trade and value quality coins,” says Wayde Milas, President of RARCOA. “This advantage is powerful when combined with RARCOA’s commitment to maintaining sight unseen bids for the NGC Green Label coins on a wholesale level.”

RARCOA is partnering with a small group of select retailers, including ModernCoinMart (moderncoinmart.com/ngc-green-label), to offer coins with the NGC Green Label.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:54 PM, VKurtB said:

So if I hear you correctly, you seem to be saying that JA has been caught talking out of both sides of his mouth. “Gambling in Casablanca? Rick, I’m shocked!” Say it ain’t so!

Not at all, I find him VERY honest.  Go back and read his comments in the late-2022 CoinWeek interview about the 1985 Gold Type Set market grading time.  You tell me if his analysis of the 'choices' is correct or not.

[Coinbuf]

On 3/28/2024 at 9:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And yet I direct you to the late-2022 CoinWeek article with John Albanese in which he discusses how it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to not market grade in 1985 when a particular Gold Type Set pulled a Ralph Kramden and went bang-zoom-to the Moon.  

You HAD to market grade or you basically went on sabatical for a few months or years -- or went out of business.  That's not me saying that -- it's John Albanese himself who I think is a CRITIC of market grading -- and yet he says he understood why it happened, and not for any nefarious reasons. 

 

I have not read that article, however I do not see how he could have used 1985 as a reference point given that neither PCGS nor NGC began operations until 1986.   Again, not having read the article I am flying blind here but the only grading services at that time would have been some of the very early grading firms that are mostly all out of business like ACG, ANACS (under ANA ownership until 1989), Blanchard, Hallmark, and a couple of others.   I was not buying coins in slabs back then; I did not buy my first slab (my 09-SVDB in a rattler PCGS holder) until 1999.   I own some of those older slabs, and with the exception of ACG most of those I mentioned were graded pretty conservatively, comparing to what we see leave the grading rooms today anyway.

And everything is relative, for me market grading happened more recently, after NGC and PCGS began operations, that is why you see old early holders of both NGC and PCGS sell for so much in recent years, because those coins were (or at least are considered to be) graded far more conservatively than coins are graded today.   But JA has been in the numismatic business side for a long time and so perhaps for him there may have been a "shift" in grading that I am/was not aware of.

So for me when I reference market grading I'm talking about grading as it has changed from a more conservative tighter ANA biased standards of the late 80's to early 2000's, to the far more loose grading that is seen in today's grading room.

On 3/28/2024 at 9:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Who are mustache and vazquez, never heard of them. 

 

Just a couple of knuckleheads new to the forum, the kind that show up with outrageous claims of owning millions dollar coins and then immediately start to fight with members who give them correct information.    I just cannot have any respect for people like that.

[VKurtB]

On 3/29/2024 at 3:03 PM, Coinbuf said:

Just a couple of knuckleheads new to the forum,

Sometimes the older vocabulary is without peer - knuckleheads. Perfect.

[Henri Charriere]

Absolutely nothing is lost if we treat others the way we wish to be treated.  The manner in which you are treated does not matter.  Set your standard high, and keep your counsel. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:03 PM, Coinbuf said:

I have not read that article, however I do not see how he could have used 1985 as a reference point given that neither PCGS nor NGC began operations until 1986.   Again, not having read the article I am flying blind here but the only grading services at that time would have been some of the very early grading firms that are mostly all out of business like ACG, ANACS (under ANA ownership until 1989), Blanchard, Hallmark, and a couple of others. 

CB, here's the link to the entire article and the key paragraph: 

"...I’ve had discussions, arguments with Joe O’Connor, Warren Mills, guys like that, these boutique dealers that really have stricter standard and will have discussions about grading and they’re saying, “John, you’re wrong about this and you’re wrong about that.” I’m like, “Well, I don’t know if I’m wrong and I’m not saying you’re wrong either. You just have a different standard.” So, it’s a certain standard.

It’s probably unfortunate, Charles, because there seems to be… again, I’ve been a very large buyer over the years of rare coins as well. So, it’s almost like those who have the money rule.

I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher.

I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again.”

Fortunately, I think that the more technical rules prevail because PCGS never got into that trap in 1986 upgrading AU Type-2 ones 63. Fortunately by then, that market had collapsed. For those dealers, sales came way down and then all of sudden, grading got conservative.

But it is a fact. I remember laughing about it as a teenager, whether it was MTB (Manfra, Tordella & Brookes) or A-Mark or the large houses, would always have a disclaimer on their invoices saying that “Grading standards can change with market conditions.”

That’s crazy. That’s BS. That’s impossible. How can that be?

I could never figure it out. But they were right.

There have been times in our coin market, I’ve seen it many times, where 2+2=5. And in this case, a slider Type-2 $1 gold piece, whether you liked it or not, it’s sold for 63 money. Therefore, it was 63 for that period of time, maybe for that year. The same with five Indians. Sliders were $2,000 and they became 63s. You could argue all you want and do no business or you can just go with the flow.

The point is, I’ve always said, unfortunately, there almost is no real standard, and it does change with market conditions.

Now, we hope to change that....."

https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/

 

On 3/29/2024 at 4:03 PM, Coinbuf said:

but the only grading services at that time would have been some of the very early grading firms that are mostly all out of business like ACG, ANACS (under ANA ownership until 1989), Blanchard, Hallmark, and a couple of others.  And everything is relative, for me market grading happened more recently, after NGC and PCGS began operations, that is why you see old early holders of both NGC and PCGS sell for so much in recent years, because those coins were (or at least are considered to be) graded far more conservatively than coins are graded today.   But JA has been in the numismatic business side for a long time and so perhaps for him there may have been a "shift" in grading that I am/was not aware of. So for me when I reference market grading I'm talking about grading as it has changed from a more conservative tighter ANA biased standards of the late 80's to early 2000's, to the far more loose grading that is seen in today's grading room.

Yes, PCGS and NGC didn't start for another year or two.  I think JA is talking about generic grading by dealers and the change in grading standards during this Gold Type Bubble was not 1 or 2 increments but apparently mid-AU's to Choice MS.  Probably very forgiving of more than minute wear it would seem.

Veterans I've followed all seem to agree with your market grading timeline.  First cracks by late-1990's/early-2000's....by 2004 it was in full swing. 

[Coinbuf]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:19 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

CB, here's the link to the entire article and the key paragraph: 

"...I’ve had discussions, arguments with Joe O’Connor, Warren Mills, guys like that, these boutique dealers that really have stricter standard and will have discussions about grading and they’re saying, “John, you’re wrong about this and you’re wrong about that.” I’m like, “Well, I don’t know if I’m wrong and I’m not saying you’re wrong either. You just have a different standard.” So, it’s a certain standard.

It’s probably unfortunate, Charles, because there seems to be… again, I’ve been a very large buyer over the years of rare coins as well. So, it’s almost like those who have the money rule.

I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher.

I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again.”

Fortunately, I think that the more technical rules prevail because PCGS never got into that trap in 1986 upgrading AU Type-2 ones 63. Fortunately by then, that market had collapsed. For those dealers, sales came way down and then all of sudden, grading got conservative.

But it is a fact. I remember laughing about it as a teenager, whether it was MTB (Manfra, Tordella & Brookes) or A-Mark or the large houses, would always have a disclaimer on their invoices saying that “Grading standards can change with market conditions.”

That’s crazy. That’s BS. That’s impossible. How can that be?

I could never figure it out. But they were right.

There have been times in our coin market, I’ve seen it many times, where 2+2=5. And in this case, a slider Type-2 $1 gold piece, whether you liked it or not, it’s sold for 63 money. Therefore, it was 63 for that period of time, maybe for that year. The same with five Indians. Sliders were $2,000 and they became 63s. You could argue all you want and do no business or you can just go with the flow.

The point is, I’ve always said, unfortunately, there almost is no real standard, and it does change with market conditions.

Now, we hope to change that....."

https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/

 

Yes, PCGS and NGC didn't start for another year or two.  I think JA is talking about generic grading by dealers and the change in grading standards during this Gold Type Bubble was not 1 or 2 increments but apparently mid-AU's to Choice MS.  Probably very forgiving of more than minute wear it would seem.

Veterans I've followed all seem to agree with your market grading timeline.  First cracks by late-1990's/early-2000's....by 2004 it was in full swing. 

Thanks, that is an interesting bit to read, I agree with you that it seems more like some less than honorable folks that were looking to profit from the gullibility of some market participants.   The more things change, the more they stay the same.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:35 AM, Coinbuf said:

Thanks, that is an interesting bit to read, I agree with you that it seems more like some less than honorable folks that were looking to profit from the gullibility of some market participants.   The more things change, the more they stay the same.  

But were they ?  I see the same debate in my financial markets.....where the debate is growth vs. value.  You've heard of the Magnificent 7 and the controversey around their valuation.  Well, you can make all the arguments you want but at the end of the day if those 7 go up and you don't own them or are underweight....you underperform....and you lose money....and then you lose clients.

And it doesn't matter if in 2 or 5 years you are "right" because it's NOW that matters. 

That's what JA was talking about with that 1985 Gold Type sets.  Would have been VERY INTERESTING if that bubble had hit a few years later when both PCGS and NGC were around.   Would their initial "conservative" grading standards have held ?  Would they have loosened ?

I guess we are going to find out now somewhat in real time with CACG. 

Edited March 30 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/29/2024 at 11:19 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

.... “Grading standards can change with market conditions.” ....

... I do not think I can be a part of anything that sees nothing wrong with this ... if there is any truth to this whatever, it bodes ill for the hobby, ten and twenty years hence ...

(Reminiscent of the 2001 movie, "Training Day," where Denzel Washington turns to Ethan Hawke, and says, in substance, Forget about everything you learned in the police academy.) 

This is one of the reasons why prices I saw in the Red and Blue Books, various newspapers and sheets, as I discovered early on, had no bearing in New York City.  From the 1960's on, the city's dealers always marched to the beat of a different drummer.  One of the questions assiduously avoided on the Forum is:  "What do you reasonably hope to get for the coin you bought when it comes time to sell?"

Fortunately, the inexorable rise in gold has effectively wiped out whatever mistakes I made or misgivings I may have had in compiling one of the finer collections of certified, century-old, French gold coins.  🐓 

Edited March 31 by Henri Charriere
Die polisking: addition of one word.

[Coinbuf]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But were they ? 

There have always been and are today sellers that attempt to deceive buyers that may not be informed; be it coins or vacum cleaners.   TPG's have helped to level the playing field at first.  But for whatever the reason TPG grading has changed from when they started.  CACG  is simply resetting back to the earlier standards.   So I see is as CACG is a return to the consistency that TPG'S had at inception.   Now will the marketplace like that is the question. 

Edited March 31 by Coinbuf

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/30/2024 at 10:08 PM, Coinbuf said:

There have always been and are today sellers that attempt to deceive buyers that may not be informed; be it coins or vacum cleaners.   TPG's have helped to level the playing field at first.  But for whatever the reason TPG grading has changed from when they started.  CACG  is simply resetting back to the earlier standards.   So I see is as CACG is a return to the consistency that TPG'S had at inception.   Now will the marketplace like that is the question. 

Would you agree that the "market grading" slide for the most part has NOT been a change within MS or AU of 2-4 grade increments....but the JUMP from the AU to the MS bucket ? 

It's not the downgrade of 1 or even 2 increments that is leading to this polarized debate...it's the entire issue of MS vs. AU and the definition or tolerance for the slightest wear/friction/rub on the highest points of the coin.

Nobody is getting animated about a coin being EF-40 or EF-45...it's the downgrade from MS to AU by CACG that is causing the friction (no pun intended  ).

Edited March 31 by GoldFinger1969

[zadok]

On 3/31/2024 at 2:05 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Would you agree that the "market grading" slide for the most part has NOT been a change within MS or AU of 2-4 grade increments....but the JUMP from the AU to the MS bucket ? 

It's not the downgrade of 1 or even 2 increments that is leading to this polarized debate...it's the entire issue of MS vs. AU and the definition or tolerance for the slightest wear/friction/rub on the highest points of the coin.

Nobody is getting animated about a coin being EF-40 or EF-45...it's the downgrade from MS to AU by CACG that is causing the friction (no pun intended  ).

...u r trying to over simplify a complex issue with different variables...e.g. raw submissions vs crossovers, "market vs technical", ms/au vs au/ms, au55 vs au58, not to mention the issues regarding toning etc...moral is dont put all ur easter eggs in one basket...just to illustrate one of ur concerns, ms to au...submitter has option of agreeing to crossover with reduction of grade or refusing reduction n return of coin, so many diff reasons to go both ways depending on what the coin is...i presently have coins for crossover submitted both ways, some im hoping for the reduction, some it would be counter productive...not a one size fits all scenario....

[Henri Charriere]

Aside from Proofs, which are presided over by their own coterie of Principal Keepers, this is a very simple concept.

If a coin exhibits "wear," whatever the cause, it has irretrievably lost its claim to its birthrite:  "uncirculated." It is condemned as circulated.  If it be an otherwise uncirculated coin but was assaulted, that fact is noted by AU-59.  That lets the collector know there is NO wear save for the intrusive disqualifying mark, it is NOT circulated.  It is an uncirculated coin that, through no fault of its own, encountered a hit-and-run.

If a coin exhibits no "wear" whatsoever, regardless where it was found (in circulation, or not) it retains its birthrite, "uncirculated." Unfortunately, bag marks on old silver dollars, punched Trade Dollars, and the like, have been granted exemptions, to a point, as have otherwise exemplary examples which are granted variances from the tables of preservation, for cause.

In some quarters, this is known as the time-tested Charrier's principle.

No coin can aspire to AU status. That can only be achieved by default from higher grades and only by invitation and acclimation. Bear in mind, rendering an opinion is not an actionable offense. Like it or not, the grade of a coin is what its owner says it is.  This goes for price as well. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:13 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Aside from Proofs, which are presided over by their own coterie of Principal Keepers, this is a very simple concept.

One of the MCMVII UHR's is graded PF58. 

[zadok]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:13 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Aside from Proofs, which are presided over by their own coterie of Principal Keepers, this is a very simple concept.

If a coin exhibits "wear," whatever the cause, it has irretrievably lost its claim to its birthrite:  "uncirculated." It is condemned as circulated.  If it be an otherwise uncirculated coin but was assaulted, that fact is noted by AU-59.  That lets the collector know there is NO wear save for the intrusive disqualifying mark, it is NOT circulated.  It is an uncirculated coin that, through no fault of its own, encountered a hit-and-run.

If a coin exhibits no "wear" whatsoever, regardless where it was found (in circulation, or not) it retains its birthrite, "uncirculated." Unfortunately, bag marks on old silver dollars, punched Trade Dollars, and the like, have been granted exemptions, to a point, as have otherwise exemplary examples which are granted variances from the tables of preservation, for cause.

In some quarters, this is known as the time-tested Charrier's principle.

No coin can aspire to AU status. That can only be achieved by default from higher grades and only by invitation and acclimation. Bear in mind, rendering an opinion is not an actionable offense. Like it or not, the grade of a coin is what its owner says it is.  This goes for price as well. 

...total b***s***...just another example of babbling on just to babble, adding nothing to the narrative...perhaps someday one of the AI algorithms will just filter out c**p like this so no one has to even think bout reading it, they could call it QA's commode principle filter....

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/31/2024 at 1:16 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

One of the MCMVII UHR's is graded PF58. 

Yes, this is known as Steward's Folly.  A once Uncirculated example loses only its standing on the totem pole.  Not so the Proof.  It is obliged to change its religion. There is no such thing as an unobservant Proof.  It either is, or is not.

[Henri Charriere]

A prophet is not without honor save in his own country and in his own house.

Happy Easter, all!

[Coinbuf]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Would you agree that the "market grading" slide for the most part has NOT been a change within MS or AU of 2-4 grade increments....but the JUMP from the AU to the MS bucket ? 

It's not the downgrade of 1 or even 2 increments that is leading to this polarized debate...it's the entire issue of MS vs. AU and the definition or tolerance for the slightest wear/friction/rub on the highest points of the coin.

Nobody is getting animated about a coin being EF-40 or EF-45...it's the downgrade from MS to AU by CACG that is causing the friction (no pun intended  ).

No I would not say that, back when the TPG's first setup operations MS65 was a very high grade, I wasn't into slabbed coins then but as I've been told getting an MS67 was almost unheard of.   Today MS67 is a very high grade but it is awarded far more frequently than back in the late 80's early 90's when the TPG's were just starting out.   And over the past 5ish years I have seen many coins that have been cracked and regraded 2 to even 4 MS grades higher than what the original grade was.   I'm not saying those new grades are incorrect or the old grades were correct, but we have seen high profile coins jumping grades with what to me is an alarming frequency.    The photo archives on the PCGS system were basically eliminated overnight several years ago because high profile customers of big dealers ((cough) like Legend (cough)) were complaining to Laura about seeing posts on the PCGS forum that involved regrades of their coins.

Gradeflation has touched every part of the grading scale, we are seeing coins that in the past would max out at VF30 now being graded as XF, even AU at times.   And yes the line between AU and MS has been blurred out of existence, market grading is not about using grading standards it is about pricing coins.   Today a grader looks at a coin and says what should this sell for, not what does this grade.   There is a reason why PCGS did away with its grading sets as grading sets are not needed under market grading, its noteworthy that CACG has grading sets that they expect their graders to use as a reference when grading.   Remember that most graders used to be dealers, so it stands to reason that if you put the foxes in the hen house the eggs may be tampered with.

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/31/2024 at 6:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

....  Today MS67 is a very high grade but it is awarded far more frequently than back in the late 80's early 90's when the TPG's were just starting out....

There are a great many assertions and observations offered best left to the other combatants to sort out.  I would like to address just the excerpt I have singled out.  It's the late 1980's.  You have just been recruited as a freshly minted, anointed grader. The bulk of TPSs submissions, I would imagine, would comprise coins that have experienced circulation. (Bear in mind, the virus that causes the afflicted to submit perfectly good Proof coins still lodged in OGH had not yet been isolated and identified.) Your tendency, possessed with unchecked powers, is to allow your emotions to supersede your training.  But The Company men are there to stress to you that if you freely assign lovely coins higher grades, what will you do when the real McCoy comes along?  @Coinbuf who knows a thing or two about stellar examples, dropped a jewel here.  IN THE BEGINNING, man had to tread easy.  Once overgraded, there's no going back.  So coins were conservatively graded and in later years experienced collectors with discriminating eyes would spot them and resubmit them for a higher grade.  I have no problem with this. It is, in fact, the first time a plausible explanation has been aired here as credible fact. 🐓 

Edited April 1 by Henri Charriere
Usual post----script die polishing.

[VKurtB]

On 3/31/2024 at 5:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

Today a grader looks at a coin and says what should this sell for, not what does this grade. 

PRECISELY! And why would they not? The philosophy is, and should be, that the more valuable coin should have the higher grade (within the same issue). Otherwise, what is the purpose of grading? Do you REALLY want to live in a world where a AU58 might sell for more than the same coin in MS61? Really? I wouldn’t. But that will happen quite often with strict technical grading. Grading needs to have a purpose other than counting nicks. 

Edited April 1 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:25 PM, VKurtB said:

PRECISELY! And why would they not? The philosophy is, and should be, that the more valuable coin should have the higher grade (within the same issue)....

But, but... the value of a coin lies in great part on the grade bestowed upon it.  Some collectors are partial to tasteless toning, debilitating die cracks -- even machine doubling. But the baseline begins at grading.  If your '09-S VDB is pitted and corroded, you have my condolences.

[zadok]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:25 PM, VKurtB said:

PRECISELY! And why would they not? The philosophy is, and should be, that the more valuable coin should have the higher grade (within the same issue). Otherwise, what is the purpose of grading? Do you REALLY want to live in a world where a AU58 might sell for more than the same coin in MS61? Really? I wouldn’t. But that will happen quite often with strict technical grading. Grading needs to have a purpose other than counting nicks. 

...that day is already here....

[Coinbuf]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

 

Nobody is getting animated about a coin being EF-40 or EF-45...it's the downgrade from MS to AU by CACG that is causing the friction (no pun intended  ).

Here is a timely thread on the PCGS forum that touches on the issue of gradeflation in low circulated grades.   I think that Bill's reply toward the end of the thread is the most correct with regards to the coin in question and how it should have been graded.   And while we will never know in this case, I suspect that the grade analysis put forth by Bill would be a likely outcome had this been graded in say 1988 or thereabouts.

Linky

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:25 PM, VKurtB said:

....The philosophy .... should be, that the more valuable coin should have the higher grade (within the same issue)....

"... curiouser and curiouser," as Alice in Wonderland would say.  Or, to borrow from the irrepressible Kurt:  "No. Stop it."

To paraphrase the Queen of Mean (the late Leona Helmsley) "the non-Mint State coins are for the little people."  If what you say is true, let it be. The market decides everything but the level of water which always seems to seek its own level. I am not qualified to weigh in on EF/AU affairs. In my series, I have never set my sights on any example marooned at that level of drought.  Now, suggest MS-67 really ought to be worth twice as much as an MS-66, and dem's fightin' words!  But again, I am weak and the Market is strong.  (Quiet is kept... the reason my F20FrGR set is short, is quite simple. The powers-that-be on high, ruled that World Gold certified by other TPGSs is genetically incompatible with the NGC Set Registry. I decided early on to hew to the MS-66 grade line until it dawned on me MS-66 graded examples had yet to be certified for the older Originals, a fact that, with only 3 out of 8 exceptions, remains true some five years later.)

I do not know if the point has been raised, but even if my series were certified under a new scale, either a new set registry would have to be devised, or a suitable conversion table supplied.  As I have maintained all along, all of this newfangled stuff is for the benefit of the uninitiated.  Those of us who've been around will leave well enough alone.

 

[Jason Abshier]

No disrespect for John Albanese and graders he hires , but I never fully ever really embraced the CAC beans … problem I saw was common coins in common grades being Beaned with CAC sticker …. When you can buy a higher grades PCGS/NGC coin instead of wasting money on lower grades common dated CAC sticker coin …. Where I do agree with CAC sticker stuff is when it comes to higher end stuff that’s more harder to get on market among collectors … it would be interesting see how CACG would take off , all it needs is its cult followers and supporter to help boost the market  and demands (which is easy) sorta like PCGS dealers/kool-aid drinkers who thinks all their coins are better and worth more than any other grading company out there so in time yeah I think CACG will succeed 

[zadok]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:37 AM, Jason Abshier said:

No disrespect for John Albanese and graders he hires , but I never fully ever really embraced the CAC beans … problem I saw was common coins in common grades being Beaned with CAC sticker …. When you can buy a higher grades PCGS/NGC coin instead of wasting money on lower grades common dated CAC sticker coin …. Where I do agree with CAC sticker stuff is when it comes to higher end stuff that’s more harder to get on market among collectors … it would be interesting see how CACG would take off , all it needs is its cult followers and supporter to help boost the market  and demands (which is easy) sorta like PCGS dealers/kool-aid drinkers who thinks all their coins are better and worth more than any other grading company out there so in time yeah I think CACG will succeed 

...its already happening...the cac beans r not based on high grades nor rare coins, same criteria applies to all coins, all grades common, scarce or rare....

[Coinbuf]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:37 AM, Jason Abshier said:

No disrespect for John Albanese and graders he hires , but I never fully ever really embraced the CAC beans … problem I saw was common coins in common grades being Beaned with CAC sticker …. When you can buy a higher grades PCGS/NGC coin instead of wasting money on lower grades common dated CAC sticker coin …. Where I do agree with CAC sticker stuff is when it comes to higher end stuff that’s more harder to get on market among collectors … it would be interesting see how CACG would take off , all it needs is its cult followers and supporter to help boost the market  and demands (which is easy) sorta like PCGS dealers/kool-aid drinkers who thinks all their coins are better and worth more than any other grading company out there so in time yeah I think CACG will succeed 

Do you also have the same disdain for NGC and its graders for grading those common coins in common grades?   You do realize that CAC doesn't pick and choose what gets sent to them, just as NGC or PCGS doesn't choose to not grade common coins in common grades that get sent to them, right?