Enough arguing! A Different Look at Grading - Page 5

Arizona Jack · 01-08-2009, 02:10 AM

I have read and re-read the 1st three pages of this post. I have a headache. I will reread and continue the rest later.

In another thread I commented on strike and " gem " grades on coins ( Lincolns of course )

mikenoodle · 01-08-2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Cave_Troll

lol, I would say being honest with you was plenty nice. If you want to fight a windmill then that is your Quioxte given right, but if someone is kind enough to point out that it's a windmill you're fighting, they aren't being unkind, just helpful.

I was trying in a tactful and polite way (while I myself was losing my temper, mind you) to request that someone and his statement of "that's just not possible to do" would either keep his comments on a constructive vein within the thread, or just let us have our own conversation. I felt that we were spending more time telling Doug that we wanted to have this conceptual discussion regardless of whether or not he felt it was possible. He had spoken his piece, we had said we respected it, and tried to just move on. I also felt that the thread was getting diluted in our repeated attempts to get him to join in or butt out. I felt that the discussion that we were trying to have was becoming too cumbersome for someone to just pick up, and therefore wasn't going to get as many people chiming in and as many different viewpoints as we wanted to solicit.

If that's tilting at windmills, then you tell Cervantes that I am his man of La Mantia.

spock1k · 01-05-2009, 03:28 AM

this whole discussion makes me sick in the stomach. some of you dont even realize how fortunate you are to be able to have a discussion like this. its a gift guys and trust me a very few fortunate people get to enjoy coins and the us coin system for all its flaws and misgivings is still by the collectors for the collectors and of the collectors

davidh · 01-05-2009, 03:46 AM

PERSONAL IDEAS AND OPINIONS - NO FLAMING REQUIRED

This is a rough explanation, with details to be determined and added and changed as necessary.

There should be no "technical" or "market" grading - just a single grade, except as described below.

There should be two classes of coins - Uncirculated and Circulated. Proofs are described below.

The 70 point system can be retained with these range definitions:

60-70 - UNC
52-59 - AU
44-51 - EF (XF)
36-43 - VF
28-35 - F
20-27 - VG
12-19 - G
4-11 - AG
0-03 - Poor

Ten points have been assigned for UNC; eight points each for every other grade range except the four point Poor. The top of each circulated grade (59, 51, 43, 35, 27, 19, 11 and 3 points) would be for a coin with no more that one or two defects in addition to wear. (The amount of wear acceptable for each grade is still to be determined.) Deductions of points would follow the guidelines shown under "ANY deviations..." below.

Grading should be separate for each side. Thus you can have a coin AU-53/58 if each side meets different AU standards; or even AU-53/EF-45 if the obverse is AU-53 and the reverse is EF-45.

ANY deviations from the ideal will result in the deduction of points.

This would include scratches, scrapes, gouges, rim dings, etc.
It would also include minting errors such as filled dies (such as the aforementioned 1922-No D Cent), weak strikes and any other defect, such as over polished dies, that results in the loss of intended detail.
It should also include anything that detracts from the intended appearance of the coin, such as fingerprints, corrosion, toning, etc.
Finally it would include wear in all classes except Uncirculated.
Multiple "defects" accumulate points.

Proofs would be graded between 0 and 70 with UNC proofs being 60-70 and circulated proofs remaining PR, but being given a number based on the standards of the circulated grades.

As I stated above, these are my ideas and opinions. No response will be made to anyone telling me I or my ideas are wrong. I will gladly enter into a dialog with anyone who has logical comments, constructive criticism or who offers an alternative system.

spock1k · 01-05-2009, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidh

PERSONAL IDEAS AND OPINIONS - NO FLAMING REQUIRED

This is a rough explanation, with details to be determined and added and changed as necessary.

There should be no "technical" or "market" grading - just a single grade, except as described below.

There should be two classes of coins - Uncirculated and Circulated. Proofs are described below.

The 70 point system can be retained with these range definitions:

60-70 - UNC
52-59 - AU
44-51 - EF (XF)
36-43 - VF
28-35 - F
20-27 - VG
12-19 - G
4-11 - AG
0-03 - Poor

Ten points have been assigned for UNC; eight points each for every other grade range except the four point Poor. The top of each circulated grade (59, 51, 43, 35, 27, 19, 11 and 3 points) would be for a coin with no more that one or two defects in addition to wear. (The amount of wear acceptable for each grade is still to be determined.) Deductions of points would follow the guidelines shown under "ANY deviations..." below.

Grading should be separate for each side. Thus you can have a coin AU-53/58 if each side meets different AU standards; or even AU-53/EF-45 if the obverse is AU-53 and the reverse is EF-45.

ANY deviations from the ideal will result in the deduction of points.

This would include scratches, scrapes, gouges, rim dings, etc.
It would also include minting errors such as filled dies (such as the aforementioned 1922-No D Cent), weak strikes and any other defect, such as over polished dies, that results in the loss of intended detail.
It should also include anything that detracts from the intended appearance of the coin, such as fingerprints, corrosion, toning, etc.
Finally it would include wear in all classes except Uncirculated.
Multiple "defects" accumulate points.

Proofs would be graded between 0 and 70 with UNC proofs being 60-70 and circulated proofs remaining PR, but being given a number based on the standards of the circulated grades.

As I stated above, these are my ideas and opinions. No response will be made to anyone telling me I or my ideas are wrong. I will gladly enter into a dialog with anyone who has logical comments, constructive criticism or who offers an alternative system.

how about a system so that honst people are not stolen from to begin with and are not harassed and treated as dirt. that would be a start i wonder if there is anyone out there who will take on the might of a corrupt and rogue system that just kiiled my dream

spock1k · 01-05-2009, 11:43 AM

it reminds me the thread is wrong on many counts ( not only the OP but some posts as well)

here are my 2 cents in the interest of public education (please no questions i am in enough trouble already)

we have never landed on the moon and there is no air on the moon so flags dont fly and neither did the soviet union get a bumper harvest overnight

computers by nature cannot be dumb or smart. the programming is what makes it dumb or smart and we are writing better programs. can the coins of today be graded accurately by computers no. can the computers of tomorrow grade coins yes. they will be able to grade humans and not only coins and i am not trying to make a statement.

people who are arguing about the grading methods need to realize that in 99% of the planet such grading will be a quantum leap over what they have. Can the method be improved today? Fat chance there are too many people opposed to it with their wallets what will make it change technology ( process or product or both) incremental innovation wont cut it.

Thats all folks I believe i have become a bigger outsider than even GD now. No interest in coins whatsoever just want to help others achieve their goals my collections will either be completed very easily or i wont be able to add another coint o my collection ever. it sucks when money is not an object.

jello · 01-05-2009, 12:02 PM

WoW spock1k

mikenoodle · 01-05-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spock1k

we have never landed on the moon and there is no air on the moon so flags dont fly

if you won't accept scientific facts, then there's no convincing you, spock.

Speedy, my comment to Doug was this: Don't just sit there and say it doesn't work. Either offer something constructive, or let the fools and dreamers babble until they reach their own conclusion. If it can't be done, then it will eventually work it's way to that.

My problem is Doug's constant overbearing and know-it-all attitude. He often criticizes and says something doesn't work. He is very simple and matter-of-fact about it. When pressed for facts, he simply says, "that's the way it is", but he presses others to explain their thoughts completely. Then he picks those thought apart.

Very few added something to the thread in the short time it ran mostly because of the constant "that's not how things work" undercurrent within the discussion.

I have been here for years. I have added content that I think is thoughtful and worthwhile. I have added my 2¢ when I think it's warranted, or when I think I have expertise to share. Doug will tell me about produce and computers, meanwhile I work for one of the biggest grocers in the US and Canada in their produce warehouse and continue to run my local computer repair business and work in a coin shop. I have many interests, and I have studied them for years. I am a very hard working man, and I am not a young one, either. I have seen a lot in my years, and I have listened even more.

I like to take a different tac on certain things. Maybe look at something from an uncommon angle. I think most innovation comes from there, as the obvious thoughts are usually already tried by the time I got to thinking about it. If I ask about something that seems kinda off in the distance, maybe it's to just get a different angle on things, and maybe it has NO chance of working, but the thought process is NEVER not worth it.

spock1k · 01-06-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikenoodle

if you won't accept scientific facts, then there's no convincing you, spock.

Speedy, my comment to Doug was this: Don't just sit there and say it doesn't work. Either offer something constructive, or let the fools and dreamers babble until they reach their own conclusion. If it can't be done, then it will eventually work it's way to that.

My problem is Doug's constant overbearing and know-it-all attitude. He often criticizes and says something doesn't work. He is very simple and matter-of-fact about it. When pressed for facts, he simply says, "that's the way it is", but he presses others to explain their thoughts completely. Then he picks those thought apart.

Very few added something to the thread in the short time it ran mostly because of the constant "that's not how things work" undercurrent within the discussion.

I have been here for years. I have added content that I think is thoughtful and worthwhile. I have added my 2¢ when I think it's warranted, or when I think I have expertise to share. Doug will tell me about produce and computers, meanwhile I work for one of the biggest grocers in the US and Canada in their produce warehouse and continue to run my local computer repair business and work in a coin shop. I have many interests, and I have studied them for years. I am a very hard working man, and I am not a young one, either. I have seen a lot in my years, and I have listened even more.

I like to take a different tac on certain things. Maybe look at something from an uncommon angle. I think most innovation comes from there, as the obvious thoughts are usually already tried by the time I got to thinking about it. If I ask about something that seems kinda off in the distance, maybe it's to just get a different angle on things, and maybe it has NO chance of working, but the thought process is NEVER not worth it.

there are facts and there is trick photography

**GDJMSP** · 01-06-2009, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikenoodle

My problem is Doug's constant overbearing and know-it-all attitude. He often criticizes and says something doesn't work. He is very simple and matter-of-fact about it. When pressed for facts, he simply says, "that's the way it is", but he presses others to explain their thoughts completely. Then he picks those thought apart.

Mike, if you feel I am overbearing and a know it all - sorry about that. I really don't know how else to say things that are factual other than to just say them. And I have repeatedly stated that I am not, never have been and never will be an expert. How is that being a know it all ?

I gave very valid answers and provided facts for my reasoning. Yet you chose to ignore them for whatever reason. And it is not just my opinion that I have been stating. I have been stating facts, facts that are agreed to and recognized as facts by the greatest numismatic minds we have. People like Dave Bowers, Ken Bressett, Walter Breen, Michael Fahey, Bill Fivavz, James Halperin, Cliff Mishler - I could go on and list another 100 names if you like. But every single one of those people all agree that in order to grade a coin properly that you have to make allowances for date and mint. And that the reason for that is that the coins are not equal so they cannot be judged as equal.

Now if you wish to think that all of these people are wrong - fine that is your right. But to tell me that I am being overbearing and acting like a know it all because I happen to agree with them - I don't think that's right at all.

**Speedy** · 01-05-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

my Mom always used to say that if you have nothing to contribute, say something nice or say nothing at all.

You could try that...

My mom said the same thing--but she also would say that if you know something is wrong, or is based on flawed logic, then speak up so others don't get tricked.

Speedy

**Speedy** · 01-05-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Speedy, my comment to Doug was this: Don't just sit there and say it doesn't work. Either offer something constructive, or let the fools and dreamers babble until they reach their own conclusion. If it can't be done, then it will eventually work it's way to that.

Mike--I think you are missing a few things. First of all, there has been people trying to change the grading system for years. It isn't something new, and people have been working on it tryig to reach their own conclusion for years. It keeps going back to the market to decide, and if you really look at what you are talking about, I would agree with CaveTroll, that it looks alot like market grading with another name.

Quote:

My problem is Doug's constant overbearing and know-it-all attitude. He often criticizes and says something doesn't work. He is very simple and matter-of-fact about it. When pressed for facts, he simply says, "that's the way it is", but he presses others to explain their thoughts completely. Then he picks those thought apart.

That is how facts work. I've asked Doug many times why, or about something he will say. If he doesn't have facts to back him up then he leaves the question for someone with the knowledge. What I like about Doug is that very fact. He researches something untill he learns how and why it works. Then if someone comes up with something different he will press for facts to learn how and why it might be differnet.
What people get mad at is when he asks for more details and when it comes right down to it...they don't have any. They are just blowing steam, so to speak.

I'll be the first to say that the grading system has problems...but the problem is where you have everyone useing different sets of of standards. IF we, the collectors, would band together and use ONE standard, then I think you would see a great turning around in todays market.
But while you have Joe useing PCGS's and Ben useings NGC, and Mike likes the ANA, and Bill uses Photograde....then you will keep having problem.

Speedy

mikenoodle · 01-05-2009, 02:14 PM

my point is that he would make a horrible theoretical physics student. You have to operate on assumptions that ANYTHING could be possible, not known fact.

If you continue to look at things from the same, staid viewpoint, you will only get the same answers. I like the exercise of stepping out of the box to think, especially when I have a problem with the way things are. It doesn't even matter if it's productive, it's just an exercise.

My system Market grading??? I think not... more like technical grading, becaue I proposed leaving out the subjective and using computers for what they do best, evaluating data.

Many attempts at manned flight were made before the Wright Brothers, and many of them were out and out ridiculous. But thinkers perservered while the current minds of the day said "it's just not possible, man isn't meant to fly". True innovation comes from trial and MANY errors. Some sensible, some ridiculous, I just wanted the theoretical discussion to take place, and got mad when someone tried to stifle the creative process.

I have told Doug on many occasions that I think he has a fantastic numismatic mind, but he's not the only one on the planet, and you don't know most of these people outside of their avatars.

mikenoodle · 01-05-2009, 02:29 PM

BTW, speedy... we as collectors will band together behind one system when that system makes sense, is consistent, and is possible for the layman (or someone close) to learn.

mikenoodle · 01-06-2009, 12:45 AM

I am sorry if I lost my temper. It should never get personal. I sometimes speak out of turn and I should keep my opinions to myself.

Welcome to Coin Talk! Register Now, it's easy and FREE!