Does the A.N.A. and/or PNG uphold any grading standards?

[Leothelion]

Hi everyone

I've been reading up on the ANA and PNG websites and I can't find anything that says that they support, uphold and defend any kind of grading standards! I did find where PNG conducted a grading survry among it's own members! But I don't believe it was anything pertaining to grading standards, only "what was likely to sell" kind of survey.

What recourse does a collector have outside of NGC and PCGS to have his coins checked for accuracy of the ANA grading standards? The only recourse I read in the ANA website was that if you were not a member (and I'm not), the fee was $50 to file a complaint! And they went over their 30 day return policy, how you had to notify the seller within 10 days that you were having the coin certified and that you had to have the coin back to the seller within 30 days, blah blah blah!

Seriously folks, is there any place where I or anyone else for that matter, can send certified coins that do not meet the official grading standards of the ANA? Is there anyone out there defending the ANA grading standards?

 

Leo

[truthteller]

The ANA has established guidelines which are well known and are disclosed in the ANA grading guide. The ANACS service does abide, for the most part, by these standards and has seemed to be the most consistent over the years. The other services grade according to market grading and have the inherent problem of "gradeflation", where grading standards change with time.

 

 

 

TRUTH

[Hoot]

ANA's sixth edition grading guide is now available.

 

Hoot

[Oldtrader3]

Inflation, deflation, inflation, deflation, inflation finally deflation. I feel like a kids condom!!! Blown up, blown around, blown up........... I have lived through so many rounds of this with the TPG's that I am dizzy!!!!!!

 

When does this nonsense end (retorical question)? Wait (!), I already know the answer, when greed stops!

[michael]

no

[RGT]

The ANA has established guidelines which are well known and are disclosed in the ANA grading guide. The ANACS service does abide, for the most part, by these standards and has seemed to be the most consistent over the years. The other services grade according to market grading and have the inherent problem of "gradeflation", where grading standards change with time.

 

 

 

TRUTH

 

ANA's sixth edition grading guide is now available.

 

Hoot

 

The ANA grading guide has now chosen to follow, rather than lead. Will ANACS now lower their standards as well and grade by the new "market grading" in this new sixth edition?

 

I know the grading services goal is resubmissions and more money for them. Has the ANA sold out now so that we all send our coins in for upgrades? It's getting to the point that you can't afford to sell a coin that was graded a few years ago without sending it in for a regrade.

 

At what point do we decide grade inflation has gotten out of hand and "demonitize" all old slabs to create a new grading standard so that all coins have to be re-evaluated on a new scale?

 

I'm usually pretty laid back about this issue but it's getting so prevelant that even I can't ignore it any more. I guess that means that I finally found a Legend Hot Topic I can agree with.

[michael]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hoot]

I know the grading services goal is resubmissions and more money for them. Has the ANA sold out now so that we all send our coins in for upgrades? It's getting to the point that you can't afford to sell a coin that was graded a few years ago without sending it in for a regrade.

 

Although a strong argument can be made for economic incentives, I simply don't buy that there exists so little integrity among the major grading services. Just my belief based on conversations with NGC, PCGS, and ANACS people over time. And I also think its silly to believe that ANACS has been the stalwart of technical grading. They have been market grading along with NGC and PCGS for years - just look at the coins in their slabs.

 

At what point do we decide grade inflation has gotten out of hand and "demonitize" all old slabs to create a new grading standard so that all coins have to be re-evaluated on a new scale?

 

I also don't believe there's been a steady inflation for all coins. Like Charlie said: "Inflation, deflation, inflation, deflation, inflation finally deflation." It follows an irregular sinusoidal curve, and I think the idea has been to market grade all along. And I'd have to agree that eye appeal, surface marks, color and other market attributes should apply in grading in a coin market. That's not to say that every collector shouldn't get to know the technical aspects and merits of coins, and apply their knowledge accordingly. Indeed, the collector who does not is a fool. But what the grading services have basically done over time is level much of the playing field in the market grading of coins, which is a factor that did not exist strongly before their involvement.

 

I basically think that grades creep all directions. insufficiently_thoughtful_persons buy slabs and not coins. If you buy the right coin according to a fair market value, then what have you to complain about?

 

Hoot

[supertooth]

Leo---And everybody else----I am going to amuse myself and buy an ANA grading guide--6th edition. I want it because my last grading guides were bought in 1970. Oh, to be sure, I have looked at other things since then and I have become accustomed to what today is called "market grading". But I thought that I needed a "good" laugh. Imagine telling an old guy like me how to grade. Heck---I was grading coins before a lot of you fellas and gals were even born. I have two standards. One----what I know the coin to be from the past. And Two---what "THEY" want me to believe it is today. Naturally, for me at least, I have to look at it that way. You young folks DO NOT. The other day on the PCGS boards Mr. Mark Feld put up a gold coin for us to look at and grade. Its fields were terribly scratched up and the coin, IMHO, was worth only XF money--if genuine-- and, in my day, would have been graded an XF. Mr. Feld helps all of us a lot by challenging our grading skills [and other coin knowledge]. He is an asset to the boards. However, no one came to my side until an oldster by the name of Bill Jones----Same opinion as mine. But, guess what the grade was for this gold piece?? It was an AU58 and it was slabbed by NGC. I would have rated the coin a 40 and, just maybe if it looked better in hand--a 45. In any event, it was an XF IMHO. So in 35 years we have managed to upgrade our coins--"GRADEFLATION"--- by from 10 to 20 points depending on the coin and who is looking at it. But this confusion has been carefully "orchestrated" by the powers to be in the coin business----which in this man"s humble opinion includes the TPGS. And the sole reason for these "subtle" changes over these 35 years----so that more money can be made and that money in turn would allow them the power over the coin business. As they say----FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. There is a lot of difference between paying for an Xf coin and paying for an Au58 coin. Are you buying the coin or the insert?? Now surely----they could fix this for all time just by putting the standards out there, once and for all,----and then never changing them--EVER AGAIN. What do you think the odds are of that happening?? Zero or less?? Bob [supertooth]

[Hoot]

There is a lot of difference between paying for an Xf coin and paying for an Au58 coin.

 

Hi Bob - respectfully, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. You graded the coin by technical standards, and NGC had graded the coin according to market standards. The two are different scales, but the values applied (monetarily) to the coins on the different scales are similar. For example, an EAC grader will grade according to technical standards (how much "meat" does the coin have), then deduct points due to problems with the coin to arrive at a "net" grade. (Many will also then judge whether the coin is scudzy, average, or choice in appearance.) This process is what you are describing for the gold coin that would "net" EF40 according to the technical merits plus problems with the coin. Now, that does not mean that the coin is worth less than a market graded AU58. To return to my example, many early copper cents are market graded in Mint State 63-65 when by EAC standards they grade at AU50-55, or perhaps as high as MS60. However, their monetary value is the same as the market graded coin. If you grade on different scales, then you must adjust your valuation accordingly. Likewise, when you look up the value of a coin in a price guide, then you should understand where the prices are coming from - a scale of technical standards or one of market standards. For example, if you want to have an idea of prices on EACs according to EAC standards, then look up the value in Penny Prices, but if you want an idea of the slabbed value, then look up the price in Coin Values. Don't mix the two, as they are on different scales.

 

Everyone should endeavor to understand technical grading vs. market grading, but one form is not superior to the other, it is just different. One should gain the versatility of knowing both scales intimately and endeavor to keep pace with them. In the end, you can gain a great deal of information considering both, or get a good laugh from either if you wish.

 

Hoot

[supertooth]

Hey Hoot---I do hope you come back to this to reply. If I saw the NGC AU58 coin at a show, the dealer on the floor would be retailing it at Au58 money. But, because I would know the problems with the coin---I would offer only XF money [assuming that I wanted the coin]. The dealer would then have to either take it or leave it because that would be as high as I would go. But a new person to the hobby, who did not know that the scratches made for a net deduction, would not know to offer less. He might be required to pay the full Au58 price. This is what I meant. I understand that NGC would be market grading it for the year 2005 as an Au58 but that market grade for me would be the same XF40 that it would have been for me in 1970 or thereabouts. To me it is still an Xf40 coin in 2005. What I was saying is that---to me--all the TPGS have gradeflated by 10--20 points over the last 35 years. In my mind the coin was an Xf40 in 1970 and it is an XF40 in 2005. Or I could put it another way. The coin should never be in an Au58 holder so that someone could ask an Au58 price for it. I know what I am trying to say. I hope it now makes more sense to you what I mean? Bob [supertooth]

[Leothelion]

Bob

I know what you're saying and I don't care what the ANA says or any of the CGS's. When all is said and done the coin will still need to stand on it's own merits for the coin collector before he buys it! Of course you're going to have new collectors putting their faith in the CGSs but in the long run, they will eventually graduate to the best coins available and not what someone tries to put in their heads. It's just plain old stupid thinking with this gradeinflation garbage because when yesterday's MS63 becomes today's MS65, what happens to yesterday's MS67 coin? There's a limit to what a coin can ultimately grade! It's nonsense in it's simpliest terms! Anyone can check out my collection of Jefferson nickels and learn how to grade them in the following link. web page

But getting back to the topic, is there any organization in place that defends the grading standards at little cost to the collector and whomever? There's nothing out there that keeps the grading standards strict! I'm certain everyone is getting tired and fed-up with all this iffy talk concerning the grading standards. We need something that is concrete that can be understood and followed!

 

Leo

[Hoot]

In my mind the coin was an Xf40 in 1970 and it is an XF40 in 2005.

 

Alas, I see what you're saying, Bob.

 

What I've been trying to say (differently, I suppose), however, is that many people who grade technically fail to understand that a technical XF40 may very well be worth the same money as a market graded AU58. So I reckon we may agree on a thing or two.

 

I'm just not so sure of this:

 

all the TPGS have gradeflated by 10--20 points over the last 35 years.

 

One problem is that these companies simply aren't that old. I don't know when ANACS started under ANA, but I don't think they were grading initially - just authenticating.

 

Anyhow, what I recall from the 1960s and 70s is that dealers market graded the death out of coins and their grades were all over the place. Some were strict and some were loose as a goose. This caused huge problems in the market. For the average collector, the probability of getting snookered was about 100% over time. Along came the TPGS, who were understandably conservative initially. Over time, however, the addition of experience and the breadth of coins that they have considered has allowed them to adjust their grading to a more market-acceptable standard. Granted, it's not always on a perfectly even keel, nor is it tracking consistently up or down. It wavers. For example, right now I'd consider most of what the Big Three are doing is close to what they were doing in the 1980s with a growing and strong market. Conservatism in market grading often follows enthsiasm in the market, and vice-versa. It's somewhat a matter of what can be guaranteed in terms of what defines each grade over the long course of time. So, what I think the TPGs have done is basically good, and I don't perceive the same kind of grade-flation that you and some others do.

 

Indeed, since 1985 or so, and across most series (not individual coins), I think there's been fairly remarkable consistency, with the ultra-stingy grades being at the very earliest. But there's always a roller-coaster.

 

Also, bear in mind that prior to 1980, the grades of 25, 35, 53, 55, 58, 61-64, 66-69 were veritably unheard of. (And grades of fine and below were usually only a letter or description - F, G, FR.) So the market has had more than a single effect. The more complex the scale gets, the greater the perception that grades are shifting. Additionally, below 60, a single grade jump is more than 1 point, which makes the perception of shifting grades all the worse.

 

Hoot

[supertooth]

Hoot my friend----We are on the same page. Just my inaccurate collector way of framing my words. Thirty-five years is a long time ago. But I still have my ANACS papers for my CC20"s from 1972-73. I actually communicated with them when they were first in Washington, D.C. In fact, I had to wait to send my first CC to them as they were not ready to accept them [coins] when I first wrote. I still have those letters and their replies. Had a 91CC that I thought was counterfeit. Turned out they would not authenticate it----so I assumed that I was right. Got my money back too! So that was 33 years ago. Still got my little pictures of those coins. Anyway, I agree with you that the TPGS are a benefit----especially NGC and ANACS [i am not aPCGS fan]. But, and it is a big but. All of them are too secretive. They will not explain WHY they do what they do. They will not acknowledge, for example, that they slab fooled with coins. I am refering to dipped pieces in particular. They hide behind the words "market acceptible" yet they do not explain what that means. Why is this coin OK to slab but not this one? They know but they will not tell you. The words "improper cleaning" does not help the poor soul who gets that body bag back one bit. He is not told the "WHY" of it. Is it hairlines? If so, where are they? How much would it hurt them to explain this just a little to help educate the uninformed? "Environmental damage"? Where is it? "Corroded"? Where on the coin? What place or places caused the rejection of the coin. And my biggest complaint is their unwillingness to write the words "dipped" or "curated" or "conserved" onto their holders. If they know that one of those things has indeed been done [ eg. went to NCS first ] to that particular coin, then by gosh they owe the new owner of that coin that "very sensitive" information. Because none of this info is disclosed on the holder those coins are not separated from the truly "original" coins----not one iotas worth. And, IMHO, that is plain wrong. So, if NGC grades a gold piece an AU58----but it only deserves XF money, why should they not mark "scratched" on the holder? And we all know the other examples that have been placed onto these boards and the PCGS boards. And Leo----I thought that the TPGS were supposed to end the uncertainty of inaccurate grading. And I agree with Hoot that it is better. But, instead of it being the definitive answer. It has created a whole new business world that is full of questionable practices that gives unfair advantages to those with greater knowledge. The slabs grade was supposed to be equal for all buyers. Instead, it can only best be used as a guide and not the definitive answer. As of now, I know of no universal answer other than better education for everyone. Bob [supertooth]

[supertooth]

Hoot-----And I forgot----Remember we had that little talk about MS70 awhile back? And we reached a very nice agreement---which we did. Well this whole mess started with all those crazy numbers. Believe me that the Sheldon numbers are "GREAT". But they took a nice Vf coin and gave it degrees of VF. That was not even so bad. But then they took an Unc. coin and gave it degrees of unc. In one point separations. Next thing I knew I was counting bag marks trying to figure out what made a coin a 64 rather than a 63? I personally had quite a hard time with this and stopped collecting for awhile. Luster breaks---what the heck was a luster break I said to myself. It was either an unc or it was not. It continued to get more and more complicated. I refused to be part of it for quite a while. Heck, I did not even know---back then---what a cartwheel was. Less more that luster and eye appeal and strike etc.made all the difference in those numbers. Nobody ever told me that certain Walker dates were softly struck. I did not know what softly struck meant. I bet you right now that 75% of those collecting today can"t adequately explain it. I bet 85--95% of all those collecting cannot tell a "cleaned" coin----and be right just 80% of the time. Look at all the guys proudly showing their new AT and cleaned coins on these boards and the PCGS boards too. More than that, most of us who know better are sometimes reluctant to open our mouths and tell them. Would they even listen because the dealer has them believing in them?? And, yes, I am sorry for venting. It is not at you Hoot----you are indeed one of the "GOOD GUYS". Always there to help. But I have seen far too much in my time and had to learn by myself. So that is why I want the TPGS to spend that little bit of time to help educate---instead of assuming that "ALL" of us ought to already know the answers. Bob [supertooth]

[Leothelion]

And Leo----I thought that the TPGS were supposed to end the uncertainty of inaccurate grading. And I agree with Hoot that it is better. But, instead of it being the definitive answer. It has created a whole new business world that is full of questionable practices that gives unfair advantages to those with greater knowledge. The slabs grade was supposed to be equal for all buyers. Instead, it can only best be used as a guide and not the definitive answer. As of now, I know of no universal answer other than better education for everyone. Bob [supertooth]

 

I certainly don't want to argue whatever hoot and you are discussing (and it has been such great reading, how can I argue with any of you. ) but you said it yourself with yesterdays XF45 somehow became today's AU58. The only people who keep getting jerked around with this BS is the collector and his pocketbook! And the only people who are not organized to put an end to these shenaneginns (did not look it up) are the collectors! And the one thing that needs consistency, it's the grading standards! Certified coins need to be checked against the grading standards for accuracy! Even if it's nothing more than a grading standard reference manuel accessable at a table at a coin show. Both dealer and collector should be able to look at it with a coin and say if a coin grades according to what is written in that book.

 

Leo

[supertooth]

Leo----You are absolutely correct about the grading. But the powers to be in this business do not want us to know what standards that they are using in order to grade our coins. After enough submissions----and if you are knowledgable enough---eventually you can develop a pattern that they are using. You get a "feel" for how they grade. If it stays consistent, then you have got it made. But, if it changes for some reason, then you must somehow figure out what they have done and adjust to it. Now, maybe that is OK for the "advanced" collector or the dealer. But what about the "average" collector? I have said, in previous threads, that all TPGS ought to publish such a book as you are advocating. But, no matter how they do it, they need to make us aware of what to expect. Ever think how funny it is when you fill out your forms? Your coin----if over 300 value---costs so much to slab. But, if under 300---then it costs another amount. But how about if it depends on what they grade the coin?? If it grades an Xf, it might be worth 750. But, if it grades a VF, maybe it is only worth 250. So what do you send them moneywise? They expect you to know what the grade will be----yet you have no visible way to judge their standard of grading. Maybe it is a common date Morgan. You know it is a 64 but you are praying it goes a 65. Worth a 100 as a 64 but 400 maybe as a 65. How can you possibly know what they will grade it? Or how much money to send them? Do you send them 65 money-----thinking that if they see that they will give you the 65?? They sometimes cannot agree among 3 or 4 of them whether it is a 64 or a 65. So how can you as a collector be expected to know? As you say, we need that "OVERALL" standard. But I doubt that they would commit themselves to that narrow a wiggle room. Bob [supertooth]

[Oldtrader3]

I think that I lost this thread somewhere, because in 1965 XF was AU! AU grading was not widely accepted and not used at all in Canada (where I was living), Great Britain or Europe. Coins were either XF or BU. For a long time after AU was accepted, there was only AU50 and 55 grades. Even MS grades were limited to BU, Select and Gem (roughly MS60, 63 and 65). Even these MS grade distinctions were mostly used by auction houses, not local dealers. Many dealers had "BU" coins that, by today's standards, would grade anywhere from AU55 to MS67. During this period, I used to buy "BU" Saints that would probably grade now between AU55 and MS65.

 

That is what made coin collecting a challenge back in those days. Many dealers would try to talk your coin down to about half it's worth when you tried to sell. In fact, I know one dealer in Salt Lake City who (as far as I know) still operates on that premise. Talk about frozen in time!