Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

C'mon PCGS: They can't both be F15 Oregon Commems

 
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6
Pillar of the Community
Canada
619 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  04:10 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Optimist-numismatist to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
.Coins don't care what date/mm they have. Graders must treat them as any other. Otherwise, there exists too much bias, spin and, ultimately, collusion.

A Key Date is made the same way as a "normal" coin.


Pillar of the Community
United States
1068 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  09:17 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Bret to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I don't see the justification. You actually just gave credence to the point that coins, like worn commems, are given a cursory glance of a grade because they don't fit into a high-dollar category.

What you suggest is that TPGs are biased in their grading in favor of super high value coins. That's seems completely plausible, but deplorable.

Coins don't care what date/mm they have. Graders must treat them as any other. Otherwise, there exists too much bias, spin and, ultimately, collusion.

A Key Date is made the same way as a "normal" coin.

+1 Well said. And again, I think that it speaks to the value of the service that's being purchased. If they grade differently depending on the date, mint mark or potential value differences, then the results are biased.

BTW, the quality of strike isn't part of the grade as the grade simply takes wear in to account. Obviously the quality of the strike does impact the value, but they shouldn't try to intermingle it with the grade. If the 3rd party grading services want to speak to the quality of the strike, then they should offer that service on a separate scale.
Edited by Bret
07/09/2018 09:18 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
5589 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  11:37 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Earle42 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
What you suggest is that TPGs are biased in their grading in favor of super high value coins. That's seems completely plausible, but deplorable.


The day we live in is one where anything can be talked around in order to make it sound legitimate.

The inconsistency in treating any coin like any other coin is part of the training the graders receive and is subject to the whim of the companies rather than based upon concrete fact. This is sad when other peoples' money is what they are really messing with.

What type of logic is it that says the grades are about the coins themselves anyway when the different TPGs use different standards to grade by? To one TPG its an MS63, to another an MS64, to another... The COIN itself does not change.

It's like this video with former PCGS president Ron Guth:
cuSk3Mrb1uA


Its fun to watch, but it SHOULD be emphasized in the video that the challenge is not seeing how well he can grade coins, he is seeing how well his answers match up to the grades given by PCG'S system.

If this had been an NGC challenge, it is likely the "correct" answers would not be the same numbers and the ending score much different.

A great test would be to have experts from NGC and the other main TPGs take the same challenge. But this would not look good at all for marketing!

I DO like how Mr. Guth, at the end explains that the best graders only "get it right" 80% of the time and states this is why they use three graders.

However, it would have been much more accurate to say that the best graders opinions match up with the three graders' average about 80% of the time. Its not about a right or wrong grade since three experts can have three opinions.

It would be so much better to have a system that was not concerned about which TPG system was applied to assigning what goes on the label, but instead having a factual, verifiable, repeatable grade given. Then allow the buyer and seller to haggle over one point for eye appeal.

When a scientific method of grading was used before, it failed most likely b/c computers were not yet in everyone's home, let alone in just about everyone's pockets like they are today. An awful lot of the public did not trust computers back then.

- When I value " being right" more than what IS right, I am then right...a fool.
- How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash?
- Real men play Fizzbin.
Edited by Earle42
07/09/2018 11:40 am
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11045 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  4:14 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
You actually just gave credence to the point that coins, like worn commems, are given a cursory glance of a grade because they don't fit into a high-dollar category.


No I didn't, I said they grade them harder in higher values aka a tougher standard not that they just give them a glance.


Quote:
Coins don't care what date/mm they have. Graders must treat them as any other.


No they shouldn't. Different mints especially branch mints all had different technologies and quality. Are you really trying to argue that C and D gold should be graded the same as P gold, because it absolutely should not. Nor should early O be graded the same as P nor should pre 1835 be graded the same as a 1950s coin ect ect.

Date/mm absolutely matters in how a coin/series is graded and that is the one thing that trips up the most people in their efforts to learn to grade.

You're trying to say everydate/mm should be treated the same. So that means everything has to be held to the ultramodern standard we currently use for the ultramodern collector releases as that is the the pickiest one. So now everything before 1916 is a details coin by that standard, and most of the stuff from 1916 to about 1990 either loses a bunch of grades or gets details as well and now from the 1990s on we can go back to grading.

That's what would happen having one standard across everything like you're saying their should be. One standard has NEVER been how coins are graded and that goes back before the TPGs existed.


Quote:
BTW, the quality of strike isn't part of the grade as the grade simply takes wear in to account.


Quality of strike is part of the grade. On ultra moderns it's more significant, but it is a small part of the equation.


Quote:
When a scientific method of grading was used before, it failed most likely b/c computers were not yet in everyone's home


Computer grading failed and will always fail because ugly coins get high grades while lower graded coins in the system are the ones everyone wants because they look better.
Pillar of the Community
Canada
619 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  5:19 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Optimist-numismatist to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
.You're trying to say everydate/mm should be treated the same. So that means everything has to be held to the ultramodern standard we currently use for the ultramodern collector releases as that is the the pickiest one. So now everything before 1916 is a details coin by that standard, and most of the stuff from 1916 to about 1990 either loses a bunch of grades or gets details as well and now from the 1990s on we can go back to grading.

That's what would happen having one standard across everything like you're saying their should be. One standard has NEVER been how coins are graded and that goes back before the TPGs existed.



I don't think that's what they meant. I think what they meant was that a coin shouldn't be graded differently just because its a key date, for example say you collected a series where every date and mint had the same quality coins, including the key date. With that said the key date SHOULD be graded the same way as its brother/sister coins, however it seems that some coins are graded differently just because its a key date, higher or lower depends (though I have seen higher as most common).

Same should go for a series with original grade surviving rates. If two years coins are pretty similar in quality , but coin 1's year is easier to find with original surfaces than coin 2's year, coin 2 shouldn't be graded with lower standards than coin 1, or strait grading coin 2s that would likely not strait grade if they bore coin 1's date
Pillar of the Community
United States
1068 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  5:49 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Bret to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Are you really trying to argue that C and D gold should be graded the same as P gold, because it absolutely should not. Nor should early O be graded the same as P nor should pre 1835 be graded the same as a 1950s coin ect ect.

All the coins within the same series should be graded the same. Grades measure the amount of wear on a coin. Quality of strike should not enter the equation. The 3rd party graders should be able to tell the difference and not blend the two. Any just for the record, a lower grade coin can have better eye appeal than a higher grade coin simply because of the quality of the strike.


Quote:
One standard has NEVER been how coins are graded and that goes back before the TPGs existed.

I remember those days and having one consistent opinion was the main selling point of 3rd party grading. It was supposed to be one standard for everyone to go by. If a 3rd party grading services grades two coins that have the same wear and are identical save for the date and/or mint mark differently, then their grading opinion is worthless. If I'm going to have to read the tea leaves in order to figure out how a 3rd party grading service grades each coin within a series, what's the point?
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11045 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  6:22 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I think what they meant was that a coin shouldn't be graded differently just because its a key date, for example say you collected a series where every date and mint had the same quality coins, including the key date.


They are graded the same on modern issues. Top pops are top pops there. The only difference with keys is that the grading is harder around big value jumps. That's always been the case with grading and isn't any new concept. It's not like an entirely new scale is used, you get just really aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt with a grade where the next grade up is a big value jump. The same thing happens with common dates when you get to the top grades.

I used the example of the modern/ultra modern standard though to just point out that there are different standards used throughout grading and always has been. Early gold is graded differently than new gold, just as gold and silver are different, moderns and classics are different ect. There has never been a system where a single standard is applied to everything nor could there be.


Quote:
All the coins within the same series should be graded the same.


That's fine for mnoderns but not for classics.


Quote:
Grades measure the amount of wear on a coin.


Grades do A LOT more than just measure wear and they always have done more than just look at wear. Luster, eye appeal, strike, marks, and yes wear.


Quote:
Quality of strike should not enter the equation. The 3rd party graders should be able to tell the difference and not blend the two.


Quality of strike is and always has been part of the grade. They can tell the difference between the two and they do that's why you see so many people think a Morgan is worn because the ear is flat when it just wasn't struck fully. Capped bust halves can be a huge pain to try and tell what was strike and what was wear though and everyone is taking educated guesses on a number of those their striking quality was so all over the place.


Quote:
If a 3rd party grading services grades two coins that have the same wear and are identical save for the date and/or mint mark differently, then their grading opinion is worthless.


No it's not. That is how grading has always been for classics. The mints were by no means equal back then and it shows with the work they put out.
Pillar of the Community
United States
5589 Posts
 Posted 07/09/2018  7:06 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Earle42 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I remember those days and having one consistent opinion was the main selling point of 3rd party grading. It was supposed to be one standard for everyone to go by.


I was there and remember this also. It was also back then that, at least in the coin circles I was in, that talk was of how the standards claimed could not possibly happen when it had to all be based on opinions. This is also why the slabbing companies were looked at in the early years as a joke trying to create a market off of a thriving hobby.

And now they have been around long enough, been marketed wide enough (big boost from the eBay's creation ), that a lot of people just go with the flow and are brought into the hobby thinking these services are essential and well nigh infallible.


Like Bobby said,

Quote:
The original point of slabs was so dealers could sell/trade coins sight unseen. That may have worked for a few minutes.




Quote:
If a 3rd party grading services grades two coins that have the same wear and are identical save for the date and/or mint mark differently, then their grading opinion is worthless. If I'm going to have to read the tea leaves in order to figure out how a 3rd party grading service grades each coin within a series, what's the point?


Making money.

And again seeing as all the main ones have their own standards - then there really is no consistency anyway except within the folds of one company.

Chocolate or vanilla? Is one inherently better? It all depends on who is selling which kind and who has the more skilled and more convincing marketing department. Also, if a company can get you to spend $mega$ on their product (like Beanie Babies were), then it creates a bigger fan base b/c of "The King's New Clothes" syndrome that we humans are so prone to follow.


Now if the product is always rock solid no matter what - things can be nailed down to a company having an actually better product. The value of any system based upon subjectivity is, well..by nature...subjective.

Maybe someone needs to start something else subjective like grading these subjective systems' subjective grades... oops.




- When I value " being right" more than what IS right, I am then right...a fool.
- How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash?
- Real men play Fizzbin.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
8259 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  01:01 am  Show Profile   Check spruett001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add spruett001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I don't think that's what they meant. I think what they meant was that a coin shouldn't be graded differently just because its a key date


Exactly.


Quote:
The only difference with keys is that the grading is harder around big value jumps.


What do they/you consider a "big value jump"? To me, that's $100, while it may be $1,000+ for others. I thought of proportional jump, but even that doesn't hold up. Key dates aren't called key dates because they are more difficult to grade.

To refocus the debate: I don't see how any of this explains the blatant difference between the two Oregon Trail commems originally posted as being "equal." (same TPG, same grade)

Can we agree that the first shows dramatically less wear on both sides? As far as eye appeal, I don't see anything other than lack of wear that would give an advantage.

@two_tone

How much time elapsed between submitting the two coins? That may be pertinent information.
Congratulations to our "carmine-hosed Boston warriors"! 2018 World Champions

My Want List: http://goccf.com/t/282022
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11045 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  03:15 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
What do they/you consider a "big value jump"? To me, that's $100, while it may be $1,000+ for others.


Generally probably 200 or moreish. If the next grade up went from 50 to 300 type thing, you see it the most when the next grade up goes from a couple hundred to a couple thousand or low figures to five figures ect
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
8259 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  03:36 am  Show Profile   Check spruett001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add spruett001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Generally probably 200 or moreish.


I think that gets a prize for the most noncommittal, ambiguous statement ever.
Congratulations to our "carmine-hosed Boston warriors"! 2018 World Champions

My Want List: http://goccf.com/t/282022
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11045 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  04:03 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I think that gets a prize for the most noncommittal, ambiguous statement ever.


It's hard to generalize it across everything. If you look at the pop reports and see where there's a large number in one grade and then a huge drop in the population for the next grade up that's where its happening the most
Pillar of the Community
United States
1068 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  10:03 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Bret to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:

Quote:
All the coins within the same series should be graded the same.

That's fine for mnoderns but not for classics.

What we have here is a fundamental disagreement. If someone measures the amount of wear on a coin as being different from another identically worn coin simply because the date or mint mark has changed, then their opinion is worthless to me. The same holds true if they grade differently because their perceived value differences between the grades.


Quote:

Quote:
Grades measure the amount of wear on a coin.

Grades do A LOT more than just measure wear and they always have done more than just look at wear. Luster, eye appeal, strike, marks, and yes wear.

Again, we simply have a fundamental disagreement. Grades measure wear, that's it. If the 3rd party grading services want to add a bunch of other attributes to determine the grade, then again, their opinion is worthless to me. Anyone can understand that not all coins with the same grade are worth the same amount of money.

The fact that 4th party grading (CAC) exists speaks volumes about the confidence that the market has in the opinions of the 4rd party graders.

The only real value that I see in 3rd party grading is their authentication services. For a valuable coin, it's nice to have an insurance policy against fraud.

Edited by Bret
07/10/2018 10:04 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
6761 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  11:16 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add SilverDollar2017 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I have collected classic commemoratives for a while, and do know how the TPGs are well-known for not always being accurate when grading them.

I stated earlier that Basebal21 could be correct about the two commemoratives grading different. That was because I didn't look at them for long

Eye appeal should NOT influence the grade in a heavily circulated grade. In grades AU-58 and below, the only thing that should influence the grade is wear. NOT eye appeal.


Quote:

Quote:

Grades measure the amount of wear on a coin.


Grades do A LOT more than just measure wear and they always have done more than just look at wear. Luster, eye appeal, strike, marks, and yes wear.


Here's one statement on which I side with Basebal21. A grade does not measure purely wear. It certainly measures bag marks, luster, eye appeal, and strike in Uncirculated grades.

In circulated grades, however, the only thing that matters with the grade is wear, other than factors that would cause a details grade on the coin.
Collector of all classic US coinage.

How to identify cleaned coins: http://goccf.com/t/319679
Edited by SilverDollar2017
07/10/2018 11:17 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
8743 Posts
 Posted 07/10/2018  11:25 am  Show Profile   Check BH1964's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add BH1964 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Here's one statement on which I side with Basebal21. A grade does not measure purely wear. It certainly measures bag marks, luster, eye appeal, and strike in Uncirculated grades.

In circulated grades, however, the only thing that matters with the grade is wear, other than factors that would cause a details grade on the coin.


Even in circulated grades, particularly XF and AU, eye appeal, luster and strike factor into the grade.
ANA #R3154474
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Coin Community Member eBay Sales

Certified Coins   Certified VAMs   Certified Errors  




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2018 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2018 Coin Community Forums
It took 2.21 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05