What defines a "Conservative" or "Liberal" coin grader 1 1

[RWB]

I get almost daily gripes from collectors and others complaining that So-and-So is a "liberal" grader or a "conservative" grader. Another variant is that So-and-So is a conservative grader when buying and liberal when selling.

We have no generally accepted and empirically defined standards - at least that I can discern. The ANA, which could (or should?) have been the National Coin Grading Standards advocate, long ago abrogated that role.

What, to members, do these terms really mean? Are they different approaches or have different back-door motivations, or....?

[Cat Bath]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

What, to members, do these terms really mean? Are they different approaches or have different back-door motivations, or....?

Everybody has their own grading thing. I'm brutal technically but don't care much about luster & will bump up for toning.

JA is my polar opposite.

ATS is having an identity crisis right now so spin the grading wheel.

Not sure about our host here.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Cat Bath

[Zebo]

6 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

ATS is having an identity crisis right now so spin the grading wheel.

Please elaborate.

 

[Alex in PA.]

14 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Please elaborate.

 

+1  Yes, please do elaborate.

[World Colonial]

Other than financially, I don't really care.  I either like the coin or I don't and will pay a price I am comfortable with based upon how much I like it.

[VKurtB]

Actually, @Cat Bath and I are totally opposite. I couldn't give less of a darn about technical grading "nick picking" if I tried, and I am 100% a luster snob. And I actually DOWNGRADE for most toning, with a few exceptions. These are all when evaluating coins FOR ME, and my collection. When doing it for others, I try to remain current by modern TPGS standards.

[Moxie15]

I am more in line with @World Colonial  I often do not agree with the number on the holder but if I like it at the offered price I buy it. I don't worry if I miss it as at the level I collect there is always another one or a whole other coin that is just as cool that I need. 

[Insider]

14 hours ago, RWB said:

I get almost daily gripes from collectors and others complaining that So-and-So is a "liberal" grader or a "conservative" grader. Another variant is that So-and-So is a conservative grader when buying and liberal when selling.

We have no generally accepted and empirically defined standards - at least that I can discern. The ANA, which could (or should?) have been the National Coin Grading Standards advocate, long ago abrogated that role.

What, to members, do these terms really mean? Are they different approaches or have different back-door motivations, or....?

There has never been a set "Standard" for anything for decades.  The closest to a standard that ever existed and probably the only place there was an easily identified line was the AU/MS decision when the definition of MS was "no trace of (friction) wear."

There have been many published 'Guidelines."   None are followed in every instance even by the "modern" TPGS with online guides.

Each KNOWLEDGEABLE & EXPERIENCED numismatist, dealer, and collector has their own personal grading standards.  Therefore, the notion of "liberal" or "conservative" depends on what each KNOWLEDGEABLE & EXPERIENCED numismatist, dealer, and collector thinks.

[VKurtB]

12 minutes ago, Insider said:

There has never been a set "Standard" for anything for decades.  The closest to a standard that ever existed and probably the only place there was an easily identified line was the AU/MS decision when the definition of MS was "no trace of (friction) wear."

There have been many published 'Guidelines."   None are followed in every instance even by the "modern" TPGS with online guides.

Each KNOWLEDGEABLE & EXPERIENCED numismatist, dealer, and collector has their own personal grading standards.  Therefore, the notion of "liberal" or "conservative" depends on what each KNOWLEDGEABLE & EXPERIENCED numismatist, dealer, and collector thinks.

Yes, this. But I'd add that there is far less disagreement about coins in the lower circulated grades, in which wear is pretty much the whole story. It's mostly in the upper grades where the subjective mixing of grading criteria gets serious. But, if you actually read the 7th edition of the "Official ANA yadda yadda", all the modern TPGS criteria are in there, in black and white, even though the photos are now in color. You can't stop reading it after the section of technical grading. There's more, MUCH more. And then there are the live courses, like the one being offered at F.U.N. It's unambiguous what he'll be teaching there. He will NOT be teaching how grading SHOULD BE DONE, unlike many advocates here and other places. He is going to attempt to teach you how to grade like the TPGS firms do, so that when you send coins in, you'll be MUCH better at predicting the grades your coins will get.

Edited October 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[Coinbuf]

Because there are no industry standards grading can (and is) liberal one day and conservative the next depending on many factors like mood swings, perception, does the coin have blue tone, is it Monday, and so on.  As noted most of this only matters in the uber high MS grades where price and grade are now meshed into one.

[olympicsos]

I used to be all about flashy coins and now I am all about whether the coin is fully struck and whether there's any rub on a coin. Too many Saints out there that grade MS that have rubbing on the knee. 

[RWB]

58 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Because there are no industry standards grading can (and is) liberal one day and conservative the next depending on many factors like mood swings, perception, does the coin have blue tone, is it Monday, and so on.

But...I'm asking what those terms mean? Tossing words about with little or no common understanding does not convey useful information.

[VKurtB]

21 minutes ago, RWB said:

little or no common understanding

Literally a Quixotic quest.

[RWB]

4 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Literally a Quixotic quest.

...only for windmills.

[Coinbuf]

54 minutes ago, RWB said:

But...I'm asking what those terms mean? Tossing words about with little or no common understanding does not convey useful information.

In todays polar opposite world everyone knows the meaning of conservative and liberal.  The question is can each individual remove his/her bias when applying and using the words, only then can a universal consensus be achieved and the terms used in a constructive way. 

[Insider]

57 minutes ago, RWB said:

But...I'm asking what those terms mean? Tossing words about with little or no common understanding does not convey useful information.

Conservative: Tight; strict; critical; by the "old" book; no wiggle room.

Liberal: Loose and variable.  Wink, Wink.

[Insider]

3 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

In todays polar opposite world everyone knows the meaning of conservative and liberal.  The question is can each individual remove his/her bias when applying and using the words, only then can a universal consensus be achieved and the terms used in a constructive way. 

I think it is more of what you know than bias.  For example a beginner may consider all TPG too conservative.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, Insider said:

a beginner may consider all TPG too conservative

Even a cursory look at posts that include "I'm kind of new at this" will instantly confirm this. People do not know what they do not know, and especially in this field. How often have you had somebody ooh and ahh at an obviously polished coin?

[RWB]

RE: "In today's polar opposite world everyone knows the meaning of conservative and liberal."

I haven't seen that to be true....But I'm asking about coin grading not politics.

Insider says:

"Conservative: Tight; strict; critical; by the "old" book; no wiggle room.

Liberal: Loose and variable.  Wink, Wink."

When I think conservative coin grading I envision clear, data-driven information; defined standards, uniform application of standards....in a way, "the truth" -- that kind of thing.

[Cat Bath]

15 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

+1  Yes, please do elaborate.

The short answer is they are trying to get more beans on their coins but can't figure JA out.

JA is market grader and will grade a 1921 saint totally different than a 1912.

The 1921 could be devoid of luster and have a lot of friction but he knows it will get high MSXX dollars so he will bean it.

PCGS looks at the coin and decides what grade it should be. They are doing it backwards. They should assign a dollar value and look up the grade on a chart.

It's hard to try to be someone else & that is where the identity crisis is ATS.

[RWB]

The market should AlwayS decide monetary value - never an authenticator or grader. That would be blatant manipulation.

[Cat Bath]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

The market should AlwayS decide monetary value - never an authenticator or grader. That would be blatant manipulation.

It didn't start out that way but that puzzle piece didn't drop for me until recently.

The big question is, how do I account for all the toner saints with beans if my claim is JA dislikes them?

I think they were on there before he was able to manipulate the market with his own preference. (like PQ stickers)

Edited October 15, 2020 by Cat Bath

[Cat Bath]

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Actually, @Cat Bath and I are totally opposite. I couldn't give less of a darn about technical grading "nick picking" if I tried, and I am 100% a luster snob. And I actually DOWNGRADE for most toning, with a few exceptions. These are all when evaluating coins FOR ME, and my collection. When doing it for others, I try to remain current by modern TPGS standards.

It's so refreshing to hear about an informed opinion rather than an appeal to authority.

[MarkFeld]

On 10/13/2020 at 10:28 PM, RWB said:

I get almost daily gripes from collectors and others complaining that So-and-So is a "liberal" grader or a "conservative" grader. Another variant is that So-and-So is a conservative grader when buying and liberal when selling.

We have no generally accepted and empirically defined standards - at least that I can discern. The ANA, which could (or should?) have been the National Coin Grading Standards advocate, long ago abrogated that role.

What, to members, do these terms really mean? Are they different approaches or have different back-door motivations, or....?

From the perspective of (and relative to) the individual opinion of each person, coins are graded too low, too high or accurately.

The level of knowledge and expertise among those with such opinions can vary immensely, so some opinions are far more informed than others.

Edited October 15, 2020 by MarkFeld

[RWB]

10 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

It didn't start out that way but that puzzle piece didn't drop for me until recently.

The big question is, how do I account for all the toner saints with beans if my claim is JA dislikes them?

I think they were on there before he was able to manipulate the market with his own preference. (like PQ stickers)

There is  a completely different focus for TPGs versus CAC.

CAC is a way to cherry pick the nicest, or most readily saleable coins. People pay to have their coin looked at and CAC keeps a record of the "best profit goodies." It is a low risk broker approach and very profitable. The broker - CAC - knows the likes of potential coin buyers and charges accordingly.

The overall effect is to distort both value and "grade" by introducing an entirely commercial entity into what was supposed to be a largely objective assessment of authenticity and condition. CAC has become a contaminant - kind of a numismatic virus of epidemic proportion. It can be controlled by analogous methods as CoVID-19.

[RWB]

4 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

From the perspective of (and relative to) the individual opinion of each person, coins are graded too low, too high or accurately.

The level of knowledge and expertise among those with such opinions can vary immensely, so some opinions are far more informed than others.

Agreed. But we must concede that most active collectors have become dependent on TPGs for grading, e.g., few can reliably grade a coin anymore. Auction companies once graded the coins they offered, now it's just a copy of the slab label - and that offered as some sort of surrogate for Divine Wisdom.

[Insider]

11 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "In today's polar opposite world everyone knows the meaning of conservative and liberal."

I haven't seen that to be true....But I'm asking about coin grading not politics.

Insider says:

"Conservative: Tight; strict; critical; by the "old" book; no wiggle room.

Liberal: Loose and variable.  Wink, Wink."

When I think conservative coin grading I envision clear, data-driven information; defined standards, uniform application of standards....in a way, "the truth" -- that kind of thing.

It was tried and rejected by the market.

True "Technical Grading" (clear, data-driven information; defined standards, uniform application of standards that did not change over time or follow fluctuations in the coin market) as done at the ANA's Certification only while in DC and then at the first TPGS - INSAB also in DC. 

Note:  Collectors loved it but dealers rejected it.  One of the oldest major dealerships threatened to sue the first TPGS claiming they had no business grading coins.  We were scared but the Director did not back down although a lawsuit would have put us out of business!  Thankfully, a few weeks later the ANA announced that  their authentication service in Colorado had plans to become the second TPGS.    

[RWB]

RE: "It was tried and rejected by the market."

Really. When did this happen and why? Free markets crave stability. Objective grading - facts - are stable.

A cynical approach would be "If collectors loved it and dealers hated it, then it must have been right." Dealers love to distort, quibble, and bend conditions to their advantage: conservative when buying liberal when selling. Stability makes it difficult to "scam the boobs" as J.J. Ford, Jr. loved to say.

My original question remains.....

[Insider]

11 hours ago, RWB said:

The market should AlwayS decide monetary value - never an authenticator or grader. That would be blatant manipulation.

I'm not allowed to give likes at this time. 

Roger is correct and has posted the major solution to the "grading mess."  Until coins are graded CORRECTLY** in an independently funded "ivory tower" by folks who DON'T GIVE A DARN about whinny dealers  who have forced the major TPGS to continue to loosen the standards...and until the VALUE of each coin is set by the coin dealers/collectors who buy and sell them, there will ALWAYS be problems.  

BTW, if this ever were to happen, you can say goodbye to CAC.   

** Technical grading is extremely easy so don't give me the "What's correctly?" BS.   YN's can learn to do it in a short time as THEY HAVE NO CLUE of the coin's VALUE!!!!  They grade what they see.

[Insider]

1 minute ago, RWB said:

RE: "It was tried and rejected by the market."

Really. When did this happen and why? Free markets crave stability. Objective grading - facts - are stable.

A cynical approach would be "If collectors loved it and dealers hated it, then it must have been right." Dealers love to distort, quibble, and bend conditions to their advantage: conservative when buying liberal when selling. Stability makes it difficult to "scam the boobs" as J.J. Ford, Jr. loved to say.

My original question remains.....

I thought you of all people would know all of this as I have published it many times.  Short version:

When the Certification Service was in DC, we photographed both sides of each coin and weighed them to the thousandth. We also graded most coins for our internal records.  I devised the "Technical Grading System" for or records using the strict Sheldon standards.  At the time (early 70s) the standard for MS was no trace of wear.  Coins were graded using florescent light and a stereomicroscope at 7X.  The grading was strict, and did not change over the years the Certification Service was in DC.  All the variables were removed.  A coin's value was not considered.  A coin's strike and eye appeal was not considered.  All coins were graded by their condition of preservation from the time they left the press.  THE SOLE PURPOSE of technical grading was to ID the coin any time it was ever seen again, lost, or stolen as long as it remained in the same condition.  Charles Hoskins named it "Archival Grading."

When the ANA moved their authentication service to CO.  We stayed in DC and started the SECOND Authentication Service - the INS Authentication Bureau.  After a while, since we were also "technical grading" coins for our internal records we decided to offer our grading opinion FOR FREE to any customer who requested it.  Thus we became the FIRST TPGS in the USA.  As soon as the ANA announced that they would offer coin grading (for an additional charge) we started charging for our opinion.  We were grading coins for the public several months before the ANA.  Unfortunately, when you tell a lie over and over for a long time as the ANA did, everyone thinks they were the first TPGS.  The truth is that when the INSAB TPGS went out of business, ANACS became the  OLDEST  grading service in the USA.