What do you think? : Salzberg Advises: Research PCGS Populations and Prices

[numisport]

PCGS responded to this: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/974881/pcgs-grading#latest

Notice Willis' comment about dealers deliberately buying NGC coins and then crossing to PCGS at a lower grade making profits as well. This is quite condescending to collectors who use PCGS services. As collectors we are not privy to insider PCGS politics but I can assure you that many including PCGS collectors would wonder why their coins are not in higher grade holders except if they wish to resubmit at their expense. Wow what a perverted game they play. Of course this is probably one problem Federal Trade Commission was considering in early 90's but just never got that far.

[Jaggy]

Outside the 'trade' and those who are interested in grading organization politics, does the average collector really see a substantive difference between PCGS and NGC or do they consider the fact that a coin has been graded by either organization as a label of authenticity?

[SkyMan]

Outside the 'trade' and those who are interested in grading organization politics, does the average collector really see a substantive difference between PCGS and NGC or do they consider the fact that a coin has been graded by either organization as a label of authenticity?

 

I strongly suspect the "average" collector does not collect slabbed coins. I would bet that if you look at however many people have collected some coins, the vast majority have probably collected coins out of change, such as the US State quarter program, or maybe bought a Mint product such as a given year Mint Set for their kid. Even if you go a step beyond that, I strongly suspect that the next "level" of purchase would be raw relatively low grade 20th century material, such as maybe a VF/XF Walking Liberty short set.

[originalisbest]

I found the article useful and insightful, and close to the truth. As you all know, my personal collection relies very little upon slabbed coins, but as a business, I got burned, not once, but twice on the exact coin leading off the article - 1912-S Liberty nickel.

 

I happened to buy two of them in MS-65, with zero expectation whatsoever that the bottom would drop out of the market for what used to be a very elusive coin. In both cases, my company lost money.

 

A subtle effect of the sudden explosion of the population of a coin in a specific grade is that it has a depressing on the price of examples in lower grades, particularly the next lower grade.

 

If the price of MS-66 nickels suddenly drops 80%, then the MS-65s will also drop in value as some collectors won't "bother with" the MS-65s anymore ("but, MS-66s are so cheap now!")

 

 

Without bothering to read the entirety of what I am sure is a very juicy thread, you do realize by now, I'm sure, what I posted across the street is true: your complaint isn't with PCGS, but random chance and bad luck (for you) that multiple, gemmy rolls of '12-S nickels came to light. You aren't the only one to be holding the bag on those.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I found the article useful and insightful, and close to the truth. As you all know, my personal collection relies very little upon slabbed coins, but as a business, I got burned, not once, but twice on the exact coin leading off the article - 1912-S Liberty nickel.

 

I happened to buy two of them in MS-65, with zero expectation whatsoever that the bottom would drop out of the market for what used to be a very elusive coin. In both cases, my company lost money.

 

A subtle effect of the sudden explosion of the population of a coin in a specific grade is that it has a depressing on the price of examples in lower grades, particularly the next lower grade.

 

If the price of MS-66 nickels suddenly drops 80%, then the MS-65s will also drop in value as some collectors won't "bother with" the MS-65s anymore ("but, MS-66s are so cheap now!")

 

 

Without bothering to read the entirety of what I am sure is a very juicy thread, you do realize by now, I'm sure, what I posted across the street is true: your complaint isn't with PCGS, but random chance and bad luck (for you) that multiple, gemmy rolls of '12-S nickels came to light. You aren't the only one to be holding the bag on those.

 

When a person uses "you do realize", it is a condescending message. It is made more so with sentence construction that states the person has not bothered to read what he/she is sure is a juicy thread.

 

The poster you are responding to is not complaining. He is sharing a real world experience and an opinion on the matter.

 

I would like to read an expanded opinion on the issue from you. I am interested in the entire aspect of the comments by NGC, and I would like to read a more articulate and logical response from PCGS, because I interpret the response that was given as, in the main, a marketing response.

 

As to your particular observation, the PCGS response did not quite state what you interpret as the quantity of "gem" rolls, but setting aside math differences, do you think that the explanation is adequate, as a collector, that this "luck", good or bad, of multiple (math undefined) rolls would suddenly occur after the length of time that the particular piece has been so elusive, and that well known dealers played a part in introducing this development to the collecting community for the good of the community, and that there is no reason to question such an unusual event? If 2 rolls that are, as described... gem..., it is obvious and all can agree on how many pieces would be in 2 rolls. As a collector and apparently knowledgeable numismatic person, how many would you expect to reach the higher pinnacles of grade for this coin, after years of elusiveness, before you would question such luck?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Crickets.

[originalisbest]

Crickets.

 

Crickets? Not in the least. You'll have to forgive me though, as I was working all day, now typing on my phone, so will have to be brief. The op who wheezed about a rash of high grade 12-s nickels coming to light in pcgs holders seems to be of the opinion that this formerly scarce coin was suddenly graded very loosely by pcgs, in some quantity, and that it caused him to suffer financial losses as a result. What actually transpired was a quantity of at least two gem unc rolls was submitted to pcgs. They were graded as a matter of daily business and guess what, the coin is now fairly available in gem certified shape, and naturally, the increased supply results in a lower net market price. The situation is exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962. No more king of the Morgans there.

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

[MarkFeld]

Crickets.

 

Crickets? Not in the least. You'll have to forgive me though, as I was working all day, now typing on my phone, so will have to be brief. The op who wheezed about a rash of high grade 12-s nickels coming to light in pcgs holders seems to be of the opinion that this formerly scarce coin was suddenly graded very loosely by pcgs, in some quantity, and that it caused him to suffer financial losses as a result. What actually transpired was a quantity of at least two gem unc rolls was submitted to pcgs. They were graded as a matter of daily business and guess what, the coin is now fairly available in gem certified shape, and naturally, the increased supply results in a lower net market price. The situation is exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962. No more king of the Morgans there.

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

 

I don't think it's accurate to state that the situation with the 1912-S nickels is "exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962". The increased supply of 1903-O dollars was not subject to today's grading or the subjectivity and/or the change in standards that accompany it. I see that as a major difference.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Crickets.

 

Crickets? Not in the least. You'll have to forgive me though, as I was working all day, now typing on my phone, so will have to be brief. The op who wheezed about a rash of high grade 12-s nickels coming to light in pcgs holders seems to be of the opinion that this formerly scarce coin was suddenly graded very loosely by pcgs, in some quantity, and that it caused him to suffer financial losses as a result. What actually transpired was a quantity of at least two gem unc rolls was submitted to pcgs. They were graded as a matter of daily business and guess what, the coin is now fairly available in gem certified shape, and naturally, the increased supply results in a lower net market price. The situation is exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962. No more king of the Morgans there.

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

 

 

Thank you. When a person uses the term "I couldn't care less" it is condescending. It is especially so when the person attaches it to a statement of personal position. That is a sign of an inability to articulate their own personal position or to understand what was originally solicited.

 

A slight correction of intent: if a person hopes their comment answers the question of another and wishes to be frank by not caring less if it does, the logic position of the person is seriously compromised.

 

The subject of meandering posts is interesting. People communicate and share thoughts in many different patterns.

 

As an example. You have, since your membership in 2002, 2,875 surviving posts up to now. In the last 2 years (1/21/15-1/21/17), 17 have been in NGC U.S. Coins Forum, and 2 of those 17 in this thread.

 

However, in NGC Comics Forums, you have over 2,300 posts. NGC is appreciative of your support in that wonderful hobby, and thanks you for recognizing their efforts on the part of the hobby in providing a place of open dialogue, even when it is criticism of NGC (BTW, does PCGS allow that?).

 

I should have been cognizant of what field your collecting knowledge and engagement in conversation of same is prominent. Had I known this, I would not have invited you to share logical and meaningful comments about any numismatic collecting subject. I can understand now why you feel the need to be condescending. Don't feel disadvantaged. The members here are lively, engaging, passionate and enjoy all aspects of the hobby and the freedom to state their position openly, even when it is criticism of the host. Try posting more.

 

I know...I am aware I meandered.

[physics-fan3.14]

Crickets.

 

Crickets?

 

....

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

 

The best thing to do is ignore that particular person. When I hit the ignore button on him, there was a refreshing silence.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It seems like a very reasonable article, to me. There are not any logic flaws, and the article cautions that what is desired....that the collector examine the numbers and the quality of any piece.... applies to all TPGs, including NGC.

 

Granted there are tidbits of marketing sprinkled here and there. That does not diminish the observation of a possible problem and suggestion of collector scrutiny. It does direct the reader to the proclaimed concern that the competitor has had perceived questionable events in the last 5 years, a lowering of standards and a questionable increase in population outside norms experienced in previous periods.The article does not eliminate the possibility of like issues @ NGC, and collectors observing and questioning NGC end products (in the last 5 years is implied) is encouraged.

 

The advice is sound: buy the coin not the holder and buy with knowledge not brand loyalty and buy reality not perception.

 

The references in comments concerning the 4PG are not germane. The 4PG did not encapsulate, and the 4PG is a business model that buys what it labels. It is a brilliant business model, because it is perceived as the SCOTUS of the hobby. But, it did not and does not originally encapsulate. Had the business model included encapsulation, I am certain there would be questions.

[MarkFeld]

It seems like a very reasonable article, to me. There are not any logic flaws, and the article cautions that what is desired....that the collector examine the numbers and the quality of any piece.... applies to all TPGs, including NGC.

 

Granted there are tidbits of marketing sprinkled here and there. That does not diminish the observation of a possible problem and suggestion of collector scrutiny. It does direct the reader to the proclaimed concern that the competitor has had perceived questionable events in the last 5 years, a lowering of standards and a questionable increase in population outside norms experienced in previous periods.The article does not eliminate the possibility of like issues @ NGC, and collectors observing and questioning NGC end products (in the last 5 years is implied) is encouraged.

 

The advice is sound: buy the coin not the holder and buy with knowledge not brand loyalty and buy reality not perception.

 

The references in comments concerning the 4PG are not germane. The 4PG did not encapsulate, and the 4PG is a business model that buys what it labels. It is a brilliant business model, because it is perceived as the SCOTUS of the hobby. But, it did not and does not originally encapsulate. Had the business model included encapsulation, I am certain there would be questions.

 

Unfortunately, I think the potentially helpful parts of the message will be lost on a large majority of those who read it. That is because, deserved or not, the message will be seen as sour grapes and hypocritical. And much of the audience will not want to believe what the messenger is saying.

 

Sure, crossovers and new-coins-to-market account for a portion of the dramatically increased populations. But I don't think those factors necessarily account for the majority of the increased numbers.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It seems like a very reasonable article, to me. There are not any logic flaws, and the article cautions that what is desired....that the collector examine the numbers and the quality of any piece.... applies to all TPGs, including NGC.

 

Granted there are tidbits of marketing sprinkled here and there. That does not diminish the observation of a possible problem and suggestion of collector scrutiny. It does direct the reader to the proclaimed concern that the competitor has had perceived questionable events in the last 5 years, a lowering of standards and a questionable increase in population outside norms experienced in previous periods.The article does not eliminate the possibility of like issues @ NGC, and collectors observing and questioning NGC end products (in the last 5 years is implied) is encouraged.

 

The advice is sound: buy the coin not the holder and buy with knowledge not brand loyalty and buy reality not perception.

 

The references in comments concerning the 4PG are not germane. The 4PG did not encapsulate, and the 4PG is a business model that buys what it labels. It is a brilliant business model, because it is perceived as the SCOTUS of the hobby. But, it did not and does not originally encapsulate. Had the business model included encapsulation, I am certain there would be questions.

 

Unfortunately, I think the potentially helpful parts of the message will be lost on a large majority of those who read it. That is because, deserved or not, the message will be seen as sour grapes and hypocritical. And much of the audience will not want to believe what the messenger is saying.

 

Sure, crossovers and new-coins-to-market account for a portion of the dramatically increased populations. But I don't think those factors necessarily account for the majority of the increased numbers.

 

I concur. The message was lost and the construction of the document condemned the message to early internment. Human nature...find the bad and attack and ignore the good. We are all guilty. Even the common courtesy of "give it a chance" was run over by the Mongol hoards response.

[MJ]

Or why write a damning missive with includiing some sloppy examples? Why open your self to such obvious call outs? Why not make sure the research is bullet proof as possible? It's easy to throw out the baby with the bath water in this case. Seems like it was hastily written. I expect better out of Mark. I really do.

 

mark

[Kaiser14]

Statistics is my unchosen (and undesired) field of professional practice, it just happened to happen. Nevertheless, it fed my kids well until they left the nest and it's still feeding me. The person who selects the data on which to base his "study" can "prove" virtually any point. Marc's hypothesis is that PCGS has engaged in endemic grade-flation, so he hand-picks a dozen examples of exploding pops from a universe of tens of thousands of U.S. issues and "proves" it. Ugh. Perhaps, grading standards have loosened over the decades, but quantification is impossible because empirical data doesn't exist and the variables are infinite and unknowable. I can say, however, that whenever I wanted a grade bump, I'd crack out my PCGS-graded coin and send it to NGC. Got a half or full grade bump half the time (and once, 2 full grades) and the same grade the rest of the time. Cracked many NGC coins and sent them to PCGS too, but only once got a bump that I can recall. My "conclusion"? NGC is looser in its grading standards than PCGS. Naturally, like Marc's, my conclusion is flawed, even childish. In my case, I'm only including coins that I subjectively thought deserved a bump, not "all" of my coins. Even if I included "all" my coins in my crack-out "study", my conclusion would be fatally flawed since I only bought coins I subjectively liked ab initio. Rule 1: figures lie and liars figure (a quote attributable to Joseph Stalin, BTW).

[Nutmeg Coin]

It may be hard to prove without rigorous verifiable research which is hard to do in the numbers of results necessary to prove a trend. I spoke with a dealer who spends $20K a year in submissions with PCGS and he said the same. But how would you prove it? As I said a while ago on the registry issue just allow CAC to be the decider instead of blanket changes?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Statistics is my unchosen (and undesired) field of professional practice, it just happened to happen. Nevertheless, it fed my kids well until they left the nest and it's still feeding me. The person who selects the data on which to base his "study" can "prove" virtually any point. Marc's hypothesis is that PCGS has engaged in endemic grade-flation, so he hand-picks a dozen examples of exploding pops from a universe of tens of thousands of U.S. issues and "proves" it. Ugh. Perhaps, grading standards have loosened over the decades, but quantification is impossible because empirical data doesn't exist and the variables are infinite and unknowable. I can say, however, that whenever I wanted a grade bump, I'd crack out my PCGS-graded coin and send it to NGC. Got a half or full grade bump half the time (and once, 2 full grades) and the same grade the rest of the time. Cracked many NGC coins and sent them to PCGS too, but only once got a bump that I can recall. My "conclusion"? NGC is looser in its grading standards than PCGS. Naturally, like Marc's, my conclusion is flawed, even childish. In my case, I'm only including coins that I subjectively thought deserved a bump, not "all" of my coins. Even if I included "all" my coins in my crack-out "study", my conclusion would be fatally flawed since I only bought coins I subjectively liked ab initio. Rule 1: figures lie and liars figure (a quote attributable to Joseph Stalin, BTW).

 

I think you may have just proved Mr. Feld's thoughts. The messages that are worthwhile to consider were indeed lost.

[WoodenJefferson]

Mr. Willis posted a rebuttal ATS, interesting.

[originalisbest]

Crickets.

 

Crickets? Not in the least. You'll have to forgive me though, as I was working all day, now typing on my phone, so will have to be brief. The op who wheezed about a rash of high grade 12-s nickels coming to light in pcgs holders seems to be of the opinion that this formerly scarce coin was suddenly graded very loosely by pcgs, in some quantity, and that it caused him to suffer financial losses as a result. What actually transpired was a quantity of at least two gem unc rolls was submitted to pcgs. They were graded as a matter of daily business and guess what, the coin is now fairly available in gem certified shape, and naturally, the increased supply results in a lower net market price. The situation is exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962. No more king of the Morgans there.

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

 

 

Thank you. When a person uses the term "I couldn't care less" it is condescending. It is especially so when the person attaches it to a statement of personal position. That is a sign of an inability to articulate their own personal position or to understand what was originally solicited.

 

A slight correction of intent: if a person hopes their comment answers the question of another and wishes to be frank by not caring less if it does, the logic position of the person is seriously compromised.

 

The subject of meandering posts is interesting. People communicate and share thoughts in many different patterns.

 

As an example. You have, since your membership in 2002, 2,875 surviving posts up to now. In the last 2 years (1/21/15-1/21/17), 17 have been in NGC U.S. Coins Forum, and 2 of those 17 in this thread.

 

However, in NGC Comics Forums, you have over 2,300 posts. NGC is appreciative of your support in that wonderful hobby, and thanks you for recognizing their efforts on the part of the hobby in providing a place of open dialogue, even when it is criticism of NGC (BTW, does PCGS allow that?).

 

I should have been cognizant of what field your collecting knowledge and engagement in conversation of same is prominent. Had I known this, I would not have invited you to share logical and meaningful comments about any numismatic collecting subject. I can understand now why you feel the need to be condescending. Don't feel disadvantaged. The members here are lively, engaging, passionate and enjoy all aspects of the hobby and the freedom to state their position openly, even when it is criticism of the host. Try posting more.

 

I know...I am aware I meandered.

 

In all your meandering, you failed to notice my thousands more numismatic posts over on the pcgs forums. Assumptions, assumptions. Which of course are your forte, I expect. As it happens, I also follow sportscards enthusiastically; happy to help you with any questions you may have, if you're able to get to the point on one!

[MJ]

OD, don't go down that rabbit hole. You are bonafide

 

mark

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Crickets.

 

Crickets? Not in the least. You'll have to forgive me though, as I was working all day, now typing on my phone, so will have to be brief. The op who wheezed about a rash of high grade 12-s nickels coming to light in pcgs holders seems to be of the opinion that this formerly scarce coin was suddenly graded very loosely by pcgs, in some quantity, and that it caused him to suffer financial losses as a result. What actually transpired was a quantity of at least two gem unc rolls was submitted to pcgs. They were graded as a matter of daily business and guess what, the coin is now fairly available in gem certified shape, and naturally, the increased supply results in a lower net market price. The situation is exactly analagous to the release of mint bags of 1903-o dollars in 1962. No more king of the Morgans there.

 

Hope that answered whatever your (as-usual) meandering, repetitive question was. Though to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less if it does.

 

 

Thank you. When a person uses the term "I couldn't care less" it is condescending. It is especially so when the person attaches it to a statement of personal position. That is a sign of an inability to articulate their own personal position or to understand what was originally solicited.

 

A slight correction of intent: if a person hopes their comment answers the question of another and wishes to be frank by not caring less if it does, the logic position of the person is seriously compromised.

 

The subject of meandering posts is interesting. People communicate and share thoughts in many different patterns.

 

As an example. You have, since your membership in 2002, 2,875 surviving posts up to now. In the last 2 years (1/21/15-1/21/17), 17 have been in NGC U.S. Coins Forum, and 2 of those 17 in this thread.

 

However, in NGC Comics Forums, you have over 2,300 posts. NGC is appreciative of your support in that wonderful hobby, and thanks you for recognizing their efforts on the part of the hobby in providing a place of open dialogue, even when it is criticism of NGC (BTW, does PCGS allow that?).

 

I should have been cognizant of what field your collecting knowledge and engagement in conversation of same is prominent. Had I known this, I would not have invited you to share logical and meaningful comments about any numismatic collecting subject. I can understand now why you feel the need to be condescending. Don't feel disadvantaged. The members here are lively, engaging, passionate and enjoy all aspects of the hobby and the freedom to state their position openly, even when it is criticism of the host. Try posting more.

 

I know...I am aware I meandered.

 

In all your meandering, you failed to notice my thousands more numismatic posts over on the pcgs forums. Assumptions, assumptions. Which of course are your forte, I expect. As it happens, I also follow sportscards enthusiastically; happy to help you with any questions you may have, if you're able to get to the point on one!

 

 

The extent of your PCGS coin forum participation was the point. I did notice, and have for years.

 

You are now up to 18 posts on the NGC coin forum.

 

Hopefully, the proliferation of your posts @PCGS will increase to the same participation level on the NGC coin forum, where you can share your knowledge and expertise and at the same time be free of restraint or worry when criticizing the host, unlike PCGS.

 

Even though you enthusiastically partake of our host's generosity on the comics forums, that does not mean you have to be a stranger here and only post when you want to declare a criticism of our host or members or those that have a different opinion than yours. I am sure you have other knowledge you can share here.

 

Unlike you, I do care what others think and enjoy reading the different opinions.

 

Lastly, you assumed the "crickets" comment was directed toward you. It was not. I can understand how you interpreted it as about you, though.

 

Again, please post more here.

 

[Afterword]

The fact that Salzberg addressed the issue of grade inflation publicly is encouraging and might very well have a positive effect, despite the accusatory manner by which it was presented.

[KMAG100]

The fact that Salzberg addressed the issue of grade inflation publicly is encouraging and might very well have a positive effect, despite the accusatory manner by which it was presented.

+1

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Statistics is my unchosen (and undesired) field of professional practice, it just happened to happen. Nevertheless, it fed my kids well until they left the nest and it's still feeding me. The person who selects the data on which to base his "study" can "prove" virtually any point. Marc's hypothesis is that PCGS has engaged in endemic grade-flation, so he hand-picks a dozen examples of exploding pops from a universe of tens of thousands of U.S. issues and "proves" it. Ugh. Perhaps, grading standards have loosened over the decades, but quantification is impossible because empirical data doesn't exist and the variables are infinite and unknowable. I can say, however, that whenever I wanted a grade bump, I'd crack out my PCGS-graded coin and send it to NGC. Got a half or full grade bump half the time (and once, 2 full grades) and the same grade the rest of the time. Cracked many NGC coins and sent them to PCGS too, but only once got a bump that I can recall. My "conclusion"? NGC is looser in its grading standards than PCGS. Naturally, like Marc's, my conclusion is flawed, even childish. In my case, I'm only including coins that I subjectively thought deserved a bump, not "all" of my coins. Even if I included "all" my coins in my crack-out "study", my conclusion would be fatally flawed since I only bought coins I subjectively liked ab initio. Rule 1: figures lie and liars figure (a quote attributable to Joseph Stalin, BTW).

Good post!

 

And really like that Stalin quote.

 

The heart of your post is simply: "The person who selects the data on which to base his 'study' can 'prove' virtually any point."

 

In my career, with limited data because data can be prohibitively expensive to generate, oftentimes conclusions were drawn without providing standard deviations, and without harnessing symmetrical 2 level factorials.

 

Savvy customers would quickly berate the effort, but when it was presented tactfully, laid out in front of them concisely, with hard-hitting slides of graphs, they so wanted to believe in the possibility that the data offered a solution to their problem that they would lower their skepticism, and allow you to move forward with your own agenda to solve their problem.

 

That's how progress is attained. Even if you fail, the ball is moved forward in some way, something new is learned, and finally a success is achieved. Try nothing and nothing comes from it.

 

It's a new year, and Salzberg has decided to try something, anything, and see where it leads. This is how change is brought about.

[physics-fan3.14]

The fact that Salzberg addressed the issue of grade inflation publicly is encouraging and might very well have a positive effect, despite the accusatory manner by which it was presented.

 

The problem is that Chairman Salzberg relentlessly accuses PCGS of gradeflation, while denying the fact that NGC is also subject to this pernicious force.

 

PCGS has had gradeflation, sure. NGC has also had gradeflation.

[Afterword]

"PCGS has had gradeflation, sure. NGC has also had gradeflation."

 

 

 

 

Had is the key word in your two sentences. Now that the accusation has been made, in the light of public exposure, how likely is it the practice will continue? If you were Salzberg or Willis, would you continue to inflate grades given the present turn of events?

 

To what extent either party has participated is irrelevant, as far as any positive effect that might be gained by Salzberg's accusation.

 

[nk1nk]

"PCGS has had gradeflation, sure. NGC has also had gradeflation."

 

 

 

 

Had is the key word in your two sentences. Now that the accusation has been made, in the light of public exposure, how likely is it the practice will continue? If you were Salzberg or Willis, would you continue to inflate grades given the present turn of events?

 

To what extent either party has participated is irrelevant, as far as any positive effect that might be gained by Salzberg's accusation.

 

I agree with you! unfortunately there are two kinds of people in the world, the glass is half full or the glass is half empty and further misfortune is that the majority of coin collectors are half empty kind of people especially on this site for some reason

[physics-fan3.14]

"PCGS has had gradeflation, sure. NGC has also had gradeflation."

 

Had is the key word in your two sentences.

 

The choice of perfect past tense was intentional - I can only state what has come before. Past performance is no indication of future trends. However, I can predict with fairly high confidence that grades will loosen and tighten at both top TPGs, because that's what they've always done.

 

Now that the accusation has been made, in the light of public exposure, how likely is it the practice will continue?

 

Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt - gradeflation will continue to occur.

 

If you were Salzberg or Willis, would you continue to inflate grades given the present turn of events?

 

The TPGs respond to the market. When the market tightens, grades tighten. When the market loosens, grades loosen. This is a byproduct of the fact that TPGs don't actually grade the coin, they value the coin. TPGs market grade. This is a statement of fact, and well acknowledged by both TPGs. When values rise, grades rise. Values then rise because grades have risen. It's a self-feeding feedback loop.

 

To what extent either party has participated is irrelevant, as far as any positive effect that might be gained by Salzberg's accusation.

 

I see absolutely no positive effect from Salzberg's tantrum. PCGS has responded well and taken the high road (and made themselves look better for it), and NGC looks worse because their beloved Chairman is stomping his foot and firing off poorly thought-out missives.

[coinman_23885]

"PCGS has had gradeflation, sure. NGC has also had gradeflation."

 

 

 

 

Had is the key word in your two sentences. Now that the accusation has been made, in the light of public exposure, how likely is it the practice will continue? If you were Salzberg or Willis, would you continue to inflate grades given the present turn of events?

 

Very likely. Grade inflation and inconsistency mean a steady stream of revenue from resubmissions. It also allows TPG services to cover up early errors without paying out under the guarantee - grade inflation means that many of yesteryear's mistakes may now be accurately graded by today's standards. Suddenly those older coins are "undergraded" instead of the newer stuff being overgraded so as to implicate the guarantee. Think about it. Today's overgraded MS65s may become tomorrow's legitimate MS65s. It is immaterial to the guarantee that the prices will have tanked; it only matters that the pieces are MS65 (whatever that means) when the guarantee is invoked. It is all a semantic game. When TPGs admit that there is a learning curve or evolving standard, what they are in fact admitting is that it is all illusory and there is no coherent, long term standard.

 

Going back to your question, If you are PCGS and NGC, what is not to love (so as long as you don't crash the market completely and kill your business)?

[Afterword]

What would happen if NGC stopped inflating grades, while PCGS continued to do so? Less revered TPGs have tried inflating grades in an effort to attract business, and they are, well, less revered. Would not the same dynamics apply to the question above?

 

Do collectors prefer grade inflation or do they dislike it? Would you prefer an over-graded coin or a more reasonably graded coin? If you had a choice between two coins of the same type and grade and one was over-graded, which would you buy?

 

I do not think that market values are the TPGs overriding concern.