| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,130 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
411 Posts |
I'm a bit confused about the info in another thread (cleaned coins) about ANACS not issuing net grades. It was a digression on the other thread and buried in a lot of postings and I thought, respectfully, that this deserved it's own topic. I just submitted a coin with a "problem" to them yesterday (10/24/05) for precisely this reason.
Since this info appeared on that thread last month, I went to their website, and said website still indicates that ANACS grades "Problem Coins"
From their site on 10/25/05:
quote- Problem coins graded: ANACS is the only major grading service to grade cleaned, corroded, damaged, repaired, and other problem coins. The details grade reflects the amount of remaining detail on the coin, balancing actual wear with remaining sharpness. The net grade deducts a given number of grading points from the details grade, depending on the severity of the coin's problems.-endquote.
I don't see why they would have no information at all about any change in policy. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Forum Mom
 United States
5877 Posts |
ANACS is still grading "problem" coins. They are now noting the detail grade and putting a "cleaned", "corroded", etc. qualifier on the holder. They are no longer assigning net grades.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2724 Posts |
Susan is quite correct. The problem was with the "net" grade being assigned. If you took a nice AU-55 coin that was improperly cleaned, and then net graded it EF-40, (most) dealers/sellers would buy the coin at the EF price or sometimes reduced and then sell it as AU.
The argument was always a pretty good one, but not justifiable. I have bought and sold many "problem" coins over the years, and DID NOT deduct points for cleaning. Cleaning in and of itself CANNOT change the grade of a coin.
Now I am not talking about wiping or scratching the coin, just cleaning or dipping.
By eliminating the "net" grade, Anacs has put the value back on the coin itself and not the grade. Once buyer and seller agree on the value based on the coin, it is best for everyone.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2884 Posts |
Fred is correct. I spoke with James Taylor last week and he said work was underway on a whole new web page. They decided to wait until further changes were to be made public instead of changing bits and pieces of the site. Mike
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
411 Posts |
So when you say that ANACS is still grading problem coins, that means they're assigning a regular grade? If not, I don't know what you mean by grading. If so, then the grade must take into account the "problem", which, in the common sense of the term, is a net grade. I'm sorry, I'm having a brain freeze on this.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2724 Posts |
If you submit a "problem" coin to Anacs, it will be graded like this:
AU details "cleaned"
They actually grade the coin, then list the "problem".
In the past, Anacs used to put AU details, Net grade EF cleaned.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
IMO, ANACS' elimination of net grades on their slabs will have little impact for knowledgeable collectors and dealers who buy/sell their coins based on appearance. Such persons will take the details grade of a problem coin and systematically establish its value based on the type of problem and its severity rather than what ANACS has stated for a net grade. Where I see the greatest impact due to ANACS' change will be with less experienced collectors/buyers who are unable to make an assessment themselves. Without familiarizing themselves with the parameters regarding problem coins (e.g., the many varieties of "cleaned", whizzed, dipped, scratched, graffiti, "damaged" with all its variables, etc.), they may find themselves looking at only the details grade rather than analyzing the coin as a whole. This leads us back to our primary goal: education which when teamed with experience equals knowledge. Or, buy the coin, not the slab. I wonder if we will ever reach the stage of coin buying evolution, particularly online buying where most would-be buyers actually do this; I doubt it.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
157 Posts |
Part of the problem is that net grading tried to assign a market value to a coin, which I think should be out of the realm of what a grading service should do.
Consider two coins, both (say) equivalently cleaned EF coins, and their retail values:
Coin 1: $100 VF, $125 EF
Coin 2: $100 VF, $500 EF
Should both get the same "net VF" designation? Isn't it intuitively clear that in this situation, assuming similar appearance and degree of cleaning, that Coin 2 should be worth more as a cleaned EF? I'd guess that the market would value Coin 1 at LESS than VF money and coin 2 at MORE than VF money.
Just call it what it is -- a cleaned EF. The market will find the appropriate price point.
And then there's the other place where market grading is rampant -- taking PQ AU-58 coins and putting them in MS-62 and MS-63 holders. A very nice one may be worth an MS-62 price, but it ain't mint state and shouldn't be called such. Just another example of why the TPGs should get out of the market grading business.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy29
Part of the problem is that net grading tried to assign a market value to a coin, which I think should be out of the realm of what a grading service should do.
Consider two coins, both (say) equivalently cleaned EF coins, and their retail values:
Coin 1: $100 VF, $125 EF
Coin 2: $100 VF, $500 EF
Should both get the same "net VF" designation? Isn't it intuitively clear that in this situation, assuming similar appearance and degree of cleaning, that Coin 2 should be worth more as a cleaned EF? I'd guess that the market would value Coin 1 at LESS than VF money and coin 2 at MORE than VF money.
Just call it what it is -- a cleaned EF. The market will find the appropriate price point.
And then there's the other place where market grading is rampant -- taking PQ AU-58 coins and putting them in MS-62 and MS-63 holders. A very nice one may be worth an MS-62 price, but it ain't mint state and shouldn't be called such. Just another example of why the TPGs should get out of the market grading business.
Ziggy, while I agree with much of what you say although the degree to which I agree is open to discussion, one thing you stated is an absolute in my opinion: that the TPGs should get out of the market grading business. In fact, they should get out of the market business completely and just grade the coins and let the market worry about itself. Far too often, I'll get a Morgan back from PCGS with a grade that I KNOW is one grade too low (based on previous coins graded by them and the fact if I keep resubmitting the coin, maybe it'll reach its correct grade) because PCGS is second-guessing the market by trying to keep its population report in balance and my coin will upset its balance. |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,130 |
|
Posted 10/25/2005 6:50 pm
