I just bought the ANA Grading Standards 6th ed. and I'm SHOCKED

[IGWT]

I started this thread across the street and received a request to post it here as well.

 

On page 33, the authors discuss how standards have changed since the last edition, particularly regarding strike. Here's an excerpt:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I understand that strike is now used to net a grade as opposed to limit a grade, but I didn't realize that TPG grades no longer "reflect sharpness or quality." Did anyone get this memo? The published PCGS standards, of course, purport to take strike into consideration. Did Ken Bressett overstate the extent to which strike has diminished in importance in the grading of coins? Should the ANA standards yield to what the ANA perceives to be happening in the "real-world marketplace"?

[cpm9ball]

Who are these purported graders in the real-world marketplace? Are they the big time registry collectors who are trying to resubmit, resubmit, resubmit for a better grade? Are they the big time dealers trying to resubmit, resubmit, resubmit for a better price?

 

"The number doesn't reflect sharpness or quality." Well, if the MS66 doesn't reflect sharpness or quality, then I have alot of AU's that should be regraded to MS. I've got alot of 64's that should be regraded to 65, etc, etc!

 

Chris

[Arizonadesertrat]

This kind of garbage is FAR more worrisome than gradeinfletion involving relaxed grading standards that cause old-time MS65 Morgans to be viewed as MS66 today by the TPGs. This market grading phenomenon, if it continues (and I am afraid it will) will turn any sense of grading standards, that all of us collectors depend on, topsy-turvy. What will we have to do in the future, refer to a book to determine what year a coin was certified and then make a determination of what the grade on the holder really means? Collectors need to make it clear that TPGs have a potentially useful role, but not as determiners of value---that should be left to buyers and sellers.

 

I bought an 1834 CBH two months ago, and it was NGC certified as MS62 while its technical grade is more like an AU55 (but with a nice, original patina). So, when a seller wants low MS money for an unusually nice AU coin, just have it 'market graded'? This is nuts---nothing more than a manipulation of the marketplace.

[ziggy29]

Well, if the MS66 doesn't reflect sharpness or quality, then I have alot of AU's that should be regraded to MS. I've got alot of 64's that should be regraded to 65, etc, etc!

A lot of AUs *are* graded (or should I say priced?) as MS these days. As the market increasingly values the nicest choice AU coins with low-MS money, we see a lot of technical AU-58s and even some 55s in MS-61 and MS-62 holders.

 

I hate the proliferation of market grading, but apparently there are lot of collectors (and probably investors) out there who aren't confident in their ability to value coins...and these are the people most likely driving the push toward market grading.

 

It's harder and harder for better-educated and more knowledgeable collectors to pick off the nicest stuff for the grade at a reasonable price, because the TPGs change the rules and inflate the number on the slab. In short, it's harder for the knowledgeable "little guy" to use his/her knowledge to their advantage when buying coins. The TPGs are trying to eliminate the uncertainty for people who don't know what they are doing, which is good for them, but it also has the effect of inflating prices. Markets don't like uncertainty, and when you remove it, they tend to go sharply higher.

[Zoins]

I started this thread across the street and received a request to post it here as well.

 

On page 33, the authors discuss how standards have changed since the last edition, particularly regarding strike. Here's an excerpt:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I understand that strike is now used to net a grade as opposed to limit a grade, but I didn't realize that TPG grades no longer "reflect sharpness or quality." Did anyone get this memo? The published PCGS standards, of course, purport to take strike into consideration. Did Ken Bressett overstate the extent to which strike has diminished in importance in the grading of coins? Should the ANA standards yield to what the ANA perceives to be happening in the "real-world marketplace"?

Seems like grades are now for calculating relative prices and not describing physical coin qualities. We're seeing the evolution of coin grading as it happens.

[Arizonadesertrat]

In my opinion, this new edition of the ANA Grading Standards simply reflects the failure of the organization to protect its collecting membership. The standards, that old-time collectors and ones recently returned to the hobby (like me), thought useful because they helped level the buyer-seller playing field, are going out the window. It looks like the term 'standards' in this new edition has a hollow meaning.

 

If a clearly AU coin can be graded MS with a straight face, what's left? If there were ANY clear line in grading coins, I would have thought this would be it. So, all of you with choice XF coins with nice patinas, just send in your coins for regrades to AU levels, etc. The REAL winners in this kind of monkey business are the TPGs.

 

Coins that are really nice for their grades will command top dollar no matter what. If exceptionally nice AU55-58 coins disappear because collectors won't pay what the sellers want (MS60-62 money), the situation will eventually correct itself when a few collectors step up and pay more. Let the law of supply and demand rule.

 

I am not surprised that the the ANA Grading Standards acquieses to 'market grading.' But this will only make it more difficult for collectors to ascertain real grades in the future.

[Zoins]

In my opinion, this new edition of the ANA Grading Standards simply reflects the failure of the organization to protect its collecting membership. The standards, that old-time collectors and ones recently returned to the hobby (like me), thought useful because they helped level the buyer-seller playing field, are going out the window. It looks like the term 'standards' in this new edition has a hollow meaning.

 

[...]

 

I am not surprised that the the ANA Grading Standards acquieses to 'market grading.' But this will only make it more difficult for collectors to ascertain real grades in the future.

There's been a lot of discussion on the continued relevance of the ANA in today's market. By acquiescing to market grading, I have to wonder if now isn't the time to create a new national coin collecting organization. Perhaps in addition to the CAC we need an alternative to the ANA ... or an ANA with new blood and purpose.

[Arizonadesertrat]

Zoins,

 

That's exactly what I think as well. The ANA Grading Standards should be ITS standards. What was quoted from the new edition, at the start of this thread, is spineless. But....what should one expect? THE ANA didn't exactly denounce 'First Strike' designations either. And there are many dealers, in good standing with the ANA, that engage in ethically unacceptable behavior, like knowingly selling whizzed (or tooled, recolored copper, etc.) coins but not clearly informing potential buyers that what they are considering for purchase has been doctored.

 

Like I said above, the ANA is dropping the ball regarding consumer protection. This is why I let my ANA membership lapse a few years ago.

[BillJones]

One of the reasons for the current “grade-flation” is the bull coin market that has been in force for the past five years or so. When coins are easier to sell, the standards as applied by the TPGs have tended to slip. I saw this back in the late 1980s, and we are seeing now.

 

In down markets, it seems that the services tighten up. But when it comes to classic coins, I question how many really nice raw coins there are left. If you have a coin in an inflated grade holder (NGC or PCGS) you are not going to crack it out. It is an “emperor slab” (from the old The Emperor Has No Clothes children’s story) or a “Plutonium Slab” (removing it from its holder will be hazardous to your financial health.). Such coin are either on the market place having hard time getting sold, or they are lurking in collections.

 

[Zoins]

when it comes to classic coins, I question how many really nice raw coins there are left. If you have a coin in an inflated grade holder (NGC or PCGS) you are not going to crack it out. It is an “emperor slab” (from the old The Emperor Has No Clothes children’s story) or a “Plutonium Slab” (removing it from its holder will be hazardous to your financial health.).

This is exactly where a CAC pop report would be useful (at least for really nice, already slabbed coins), along with a cert validation website that has high resolution photos. I'd really like to see CAC sign on a great coin photographer and for them to post high-resolution, high-quality photos for every coin they approve.

 

If they do this, so-called "reg set dogs" may also come down in price, more inline with their real value, assuming that they do not approve "dogs."

 

Some things to think about.

[DC Dawg]

In my opinion, this new edition of the ANA Grading Standards simply reflects the failure of the organization to protect its collecting membership. The standards, that old-time collectors and ones recently returned to the hobby (like me), thought useful because they helped level the buyer-seller playing field, are going out the window. It looks like the term 'standards' in this new edition has a hollow meaning.

 

[...]

 

I am not surprised that the the ANA Grading Standards acquieses to 'market grading.' But this will only make it more difficult for collectors to ascertain real grades in the future.

There's been a lot of discussion on the continued relevance of the ANA in today's market. By acquiescing to market grading, I have to wonder if now isn't the time to create a new national coin collecting organization. Perhaps in addition to the CAC we need an alternative to the ANA ... or an ANA with new blood and purpose.

Both ADR and Zoins present one of the reasons why I did not vote for a current or past member of the ANA Board of Governors. The ANA has bogged itself down in its own Bravo Sierra that has created a Charlie Foxtrot of the organization's governance. It is my hope that situations like this can get those concerned off their behinds and do something to help.

 

BTW: If you don't know the meaning behind the words I indicated using the phonetic alphabet, send me a PM and I will explain.

 

Scott

[construct]

In fairness, the passage quoted used 65 and 66 coins as its example, not slider AUs. I have been using strike as a limiting factor on Morgans for a long time, and my grading is often a point lower than the TPGs. I have concluded that I am a little out of step in my grading of this series for that reason.

 

The book is seeking to realign itself with the shifts in the market. The "three letters of LIBERTY" rule is a thing of the past as is the "full horn" rule. Eye appeal is the most important factor in grading, and it's the hardest to learn.

 

Based on these observations, I think the 6th edition is an improvement over the 5th. It is more consistant with the majority of coin traders, and it is more useful both for the person new to coins and for the person seeking a reality check.

[ziggy29]

Both ADR and Zoins present one of the reasons why I did not vote for a current or past member of the ANA Board of Governors. The ANA has bogged itself down in its own Bravo Sierra that has created a Charlie Foxtrot of the organization's governance. It is my hope that situations like this can get those concerned off their behinds and do something to help.

 

BTW: If you don't know the meaning behind the words I indicated using the phonetic alphabet, send me a PM and I will explain.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was that all about?

[Arizonadesertrat]

True, the new edition did not refer to slider AUs being upgraded to low-MS levels. But the rationale used to justify this is no different from that used to justify upgrading MS65 coins to MS66. I wonder if people will still accept this argument once the coin market turns south?

 

A case in point: A local dealer offered me an NGC66 1921D Morgan $1. It had clean surfaces, nice champagne rim toning, and a horrible strike on the reverse. The breast and legs of the eagle were flat as a pancake. The dealer sensed my displeasure, said it must have been market-graded, and immediately dropped the price to exactly between MS65 and MS66 money. I passed, and late looked at 3 MS65 1921D Morgans in my safety deposit box---all of them were much better struck that the so-called MS66.

 

When the bull market runs out, collectors who have blatantly overgraded, certified coins will learn the true meaning of market grading.

[rrantique]

Both ADR and Zoins present one of the reasons why I did not vote for a current or past member of the ANA Board of Governors. The ANA has bogged itself down in its own Bravo Sierra that has created a Charlie Foxtrot of the organization's governance. It is my hope that situations like this can get those concerned off their behinds and do something to help.

 

BTW: If you don't know the meaning behind the words I indicated using the phonetic alphabet, send me a PM and I will explain.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was that all about?

 

Someone said the ANA needs to get off their Alpha Serria Serria.

[michael]

I started this thread across the street and received a request to post it here as well.

 

On page 33, the authors discuss how standards have changed since the last edition, particularly regarding strike. Here's an excerpt:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I understand that strike is now used to net a grade as opposed to limit a grade, but I didn't realize that TPG grades no longer "reflect sharpness or quality." Did anyone get this memo? The published PCGS standards, of course, purport to take strike into consideration. Did Ken Bressett overstate the extent to which strike has diminished in importance in the grading of coins? Should the ANA standards yield to what the ANA perceives to be happening in the "real-world marketplace"?

 

it is all a matter of $$$$$$$ if they want the $$$$ they got to change with the services......

 

does not matter to me show me the coin in a holder graded ms65 tell me the price and if it is up my standards and i like the price i will buy it if not i pass

 

they can grade or standardize any way they want to ................. for the masses not for me

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

"The purpose of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is to provide standards for grading coins. As noted througout this text, grading interpretations have changed over the years, and they probably will continue to do so. It would be a disservice if today in the 6th edition we stated that to be MS-65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real-world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the market will accept the negative feature of an MS-65 coin being weakly struck. This is because the buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like. Accordingly, it is hoped that a coin certified as MS-66 will bring a price similar to that listed for the MS-66 level in market guides. The number does not reflect sharpness or quality."

Jiminy Christmas! I'm stunned as well! Since when?

 

Just another darned example of GRADEFLATION

[fhcoins-migration]

You think dollars are bad? I can earn a living on semi key mintmarked buffalo nickels in te 20's that are old time vg/f coins by slipping them into VF holders. Now the argument is they are looking at the obverse for cues on weakly struck issue buffaloes which is actually hard to criticize companies for. I purchased an original roll of 25-s buffaloes while working for someone else that didnt even have full horns. They certed between 60 and 63. Put them in a pocket for a month and they would progress to VG8 coins even if they were technically XF coins by wear. Thats a case where using the obverse on buffalo nickels is ok but distinguishing between a vg and a fine and a vf is an art when using the obverse. Now for gold....the standards now are terrible and an old time xf45 is now an au55 or 58. Some of the mid 1800's gold getting into au50 holders is a sham to me but the moneys good.