ANACS Changing Policy?

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.

I think the present problem is that ANACS hasn't updated it's website to remove the term "net grade" in its services description. http://www.anacs.com/services.html

Fred

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.

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.

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.