Enough arguing! A Different Look at Grading

mikenoodle · 01-04-2009, 03:26 PM

I am proposing that you think about coin grading based on this:

If we were to look at what a coin is SUPPOSED to look like when it is struck. Fully struck details, blemish free beauty. Not based on what coins were struck for that particular year, but on the actual model that the hub came from. How close is this design to what it should have been? You are correct, that there are many steps in the process of making a coin that determine it's strike characteristics, but if we concentrate on what it IDEALLY would strike as and make that the top of our scale, and make the bottom a completely flat from wear former coin, we can compare coins more emperically, and possibly agree on grading, but have a more uniform standard across series.

The reason I say by hub is that as hubs are changed, design details change. the Lincoln Cent series is an excellent example. Over the years, the design has become flatter and flatter. There is very little depth to the design now as compared to the 1909. I want us to use computer technology to determine a composite "perfect die state" as can be seen by comparing the best struck examples and compositing them into a master die state and this will be the standard against which that run of dates will be judged.

The depth of strike in contrast to the intended design will determine it's grade. I want to be VERY clear about something, so here it is on bold print:

IN NO WAY DOES ANY PART OF THIS SYSTEM SUGGEST VALUE!!!! IT IS A GRADING SYSTEM FOR TECHNICAL GRADE! What a coin is worth is a function of what the market will pay for it, and part of how the market determines value is purely a function of the market!!! A coin's grade is it's grade, and has NOTHING to do with it's value, it is value that is generally driven by grade.

I think that this explains my (if not many other's) problem with Market Grading. That said this is NOT a discussion of Market vs Technical grading. I want to be clear! This is an idea of something new and something different. Don't start with ANY assumptions, and let's look at it a differnt way entirely.

We will examine grade by comparing the strike of the coin vs. the intended. A much more empirical analysis. factors like luster and eye appeal are not used as they are subjective and will mostly determine the coins salability and therefore are market factors. In this more empirical way, you will be able to compare across the series as to strike, if a coin is an MS-63 and you put it in a set of MS-63s, they will all look mostly alike. This also means that in all likelyhood there are no coins in any series that grade MS-70, and the numbers above MS-65 are much less than the TPGs would suggest. Well, honestly... did any of you think that this wasn't true now???

Many may point to specific examples that might make this type of grading a challenge. These would definately include coins like the 1922 No D Lincoln Cent. So as an example, let's discuss that coin. The depth of strike on the obverse of this coin is mushy on even the best examples, so do we just grade them all VG? Well, no, of course not. This is a coin that typically is better graded by its reverse. It is also a coin that is well known as being an exeption to most grading rules. Why not describe the grade of a 22 No D as MS-63 Red reverse? I think that in that particular case it works, and is comprehendable.

I think where people have always had a problem with the current grading system is with coins like the 1926-S Buffaloes. Full horn, no full horn, how do you grade them? Maybe the buffalo series is one that is best described a different way. Maybe XF-45 85% Horn detail would be better.

All I am suggesting is a change in the way that we THINK about grading. I don't want to call the experts wrong, I want to further develop the system of grading because most agree that it doesn't work very well. It's inconsistent, it's difficult to learn, and at times it's antiquated. Man has used technology to further his existence with many inventions. every one of those came from someone who dared to think about something that couldn't be done, or was just a certain way and that's all there is to it, and they thought about it in a different way. A way that noone had before. I am not smart enough to do it on my own, but I thought that with all of our combined expertise, we could try to think differently. I thought that we could be the innovators instead of waiting for innovation to come to us.

My father always used to tell me things like 'that's just the way it is", and that's probably why I rail against it so violently, Doug. He used to tell me the same things over and over and I would ponder them, and try to understand. The problem is that as I began to think for myself, and ask him intellegent questions that challenged his beliefs, he said that he was tired of trying to explain it. I valued his opinions very much as I value your expertise, but unfortunately, he never really saw it that way and we never got to really get into much meaningful discssion man to man.

NetJohn · 01-04-2009, 03:47 PM

Would there be any MS-60+ 1921 Peace dollars under your guidelines? Most of the high-relief coins wouldn't get above AU, then.

John

**GDJMSP** · 01-04-2009, 03:53 PM

I think you need to go a bit further Mike and list all of the criteria on which you are suggesting that coin's grade be judged by.

You want a new system, fine then tell us what the new system is - not just one aspect of it.

mikenoodle · 01-04-2009, 04:03 PM

As I write the book I will send you the pages for your approval, Doug. This is what frustrates me most. You constantly press others for detail but when you are asked you simply reply "it's the way it is" and "I'm tired of explaining it over and over".

I am trying to go through it a step at a time and think it thorough instead of writing war and peace and having people try to sift through it.

I am referring to grading based on strike and detail. A Technical Grade with no influence on value. taking subjective things like eye appeal amd toning out and leaving those assessments for the people who want to buy the coin. A consistent grading across series based on design and detail, not where it was struck, under what conditions, etc. A different way of thinking.

I thought that was a new system. Maybe not complete or even completely thought through, but a different idea. Like space travel, or quantum physics were to 18th century man.

**The_Cave_Troll** · 01-04-2009, 04:04 PM

This post boils down to "market grading is a way for sellers to take too much money when they sell me a coin". However, there is no upside for sellers to go to the method you suggest and unless there is then it simply won't be accepted. There is just too much money opposed to it.

Additionally, this method emphasizes strike as the most important factor in grading and that simply isn't (and shouldn't be) the case. In fact strike is one of the least important factors.

USS656 · 01-04-2009, 04:10 PM

Do the hubs exist for all of the coins?

If the mint is in possession of them why would they let anyone analyze them to set some form of criteria?

How would you document the different design aspects?

If too much data was published would it make it easier for counterfeiters?

Like Doug said - I guess I would like to understand how you would go about hypothetically implementing something like this.

mikenoodle · 01-04-2009, 04:22 PM

You create a computer composite Darryl by examining the best known examples. you measure strike characteristics and determine hub characteristics based on ideal strikes. since no coins have all of the ideal characteristics, we would look at several coins and make a composite of ideal conditions.

Cave Troll, I was suggesting a grading system that is NOT run by people with a vested interest in value, thereby seperating the two. I think one corrupts the other. I realize that what I have suggested focuses almost entirely on strike. I think that much of the technical grade of a coin focuses on strike and preservation, and I wasn't suggesting a move away from that.

This is not a method for determining value (as I feel grading has become today) it is more a way to determine quality of the artifact. Value is left out of the equation.

mark_h · 01-04-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikenoodle

I am referring to grading based on strike and detail. A Technical Grade with no influence on value. taking subjective things like eye appeal amd toning out and leaving those assessments for the people who want to buy the coin. A consistent grading across series based on design and detail, not where it was struck, under what conditions, etc. A different way of thinking.

Isn't this exactly what the ANA book does? It does not worry about toning or eye appeal - yes it talks about cleaning and such things up front, but not on the coins. As the buyer you get to determine the grade and the price you are willing to pay. I understand some of what you are saying, but no matter what you come up with it boils down to the sellers opinion and the buyers opinion.

**GDJMSP** · 01-04-2009, 04:26 PM

Mike you are talking about 2 differnt things. Removing the value aspect from grading is an idea I am all in favor of - and it could easily be done without changing any other aspect of the grading system we currently have. All it woulld take would be the market - you and everybody else is the market - accepting it. But they won't accept it because the market wants their coins priced - not graded.

The issue with strike is completely different, but it doesn't work. I have explained why many times now. But for some reason it just won't sink in. You are talking about basing a coin's grade on theory - instead of reality. How can you escape the logic that if all things are not equal then they cannot be compared to each other ? And that is the reality - that is the fact. Coins from different dates and mints are not equal because they are not made the same.

Ya know, I have used the ananolgy of comparing apples to oranges in this diuscussion. But even that is not accurate. It would be more accurate for the purposes of this discussion to compare apples, well, to apples.

Did you know for instance that there are at least 20 different varieties of apples. And guess what ? You cannot compare them to each other. Why ? Because they are all different - they are all made differently. Some are sweet and some are sour, some make good pies and some make terrible pies. Some make good apple sauce and some make terrible apple sauce. This is just a simple fact. Facts tend to be difficult to ignore just because you don't like them.

Same thing when it comes to grading coins. Just because you think it would be easier to grade coins if you treated them as if they were all supposed to look exactly the same in regard to strike does not mean it is possible. It is not possible because they are not all the same. They are different. And because they are different we have the system we have - as we should.

**GDJMSP** · 01-04-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h

Isn't this exactly what the ANA book does? It does not worry about toning or eye appeal -

No that is not what the ANA standards do. The ANA standards do use eye appeal, they do use luster and they do use toning as toning can be a large part of eye appeal. The thing that they give the least amount of importance to is strike.

**GDJMSP** · 01-04-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikenoodle

Cave Troll, I was suggesting a grading system that is NOT run by people with a vested interest in value, thereby seperating the two. I think one corrupts the other.

OK - can you tell me what vested interest in value that NGC or PCGS has ? They could care less what the coin is worth - it makes no difference to them. They get paid the same amount to slab a coin if the coin is worth $10 or $100,000.

mark_h · 01-04-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDJMSP

No that is not what the ANA standards do. The ANA standards do use eye appeal, they do use luster and they do use toning as toning can be a large part of eye appeal. The thing that they give the least amount of importance to is strike.

When looking at the individual coins grading standards I have seen toning mentioned - but never eye appeal. Yes - luster is mentioned, but I would expect that. I have not seen(granted have not read and remembered everything for each coin type) one grade that says something like "eye appeal" for a technical grade. What am I missing?

mikenoodle · 01-04-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDJMSP

Did you know for instance that there are at least 20 different varieties of apples. And guess what ? You cannot compare them to each other. Why ? Because they are all different - they are all made differently. Some are sweet and some are sour, some make good pies and some make terrible pies. Some make good apple sauce and some make terrible apple sauce. This is just a simple fact. Facts tend to be difficult to ignore just because you don't like them.

As a matter of fact, Doug, I work for Safeway. In the produce warehouse. Apples are not made, they are grown, and therefore are all different. A manufactured product is subject to quality control. Not QC that is varied from factory to factory, day to day, but is the same, from plant to plant in order to form a product that is standard, reliable and very much the same from one to another. Coins are manufactured and therefore like any other product can be standardized and grade as such.

But let's forget tha for a moment and go to something that is not standard but yet is graded. Back to the grocery business to you guessed it... eggs. grades are not made in standard plants mor are they standard in any way, but we still group them by size, color and quality into categories called grades. They are standard and they don't vary chicken to chicken or even from farm to farm.

The market didn't have to accept these standards either, they were foisted upon them because it was the best system available. My hope was to displace the current system for grading by creating a better one.

mikenoodle · 01-04-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDJMSP

OK - can you tell me what vested interest in value that NGC or PCGS has ? They could care less what the coin is worth - it makes no difference to them. They get paid the same amount to slab a coin if the coin is worth $10 or $100,000.

If it is PCGS' "opinion" on their case that helps determine the value of the coin, then they play a large part and have a HUGE interest in what the coin sells for in many ways. Not the least of which is their perceived brand in th marketplace based on the consistency of their grades and the acceptance of said grades in the marketplace.

Why would they create registry sets if not to influence the submission (and subsequent resubmission) of coins in large numbers?

**GDJMSP** · 01-04-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h

When looking at the individual coins grading standards I have seen toning mentioned - but never eye appeal. Yes - luster is mentioned, but I would expect that. I have not seen(granted have not read and remembered everything for each coin type) one grade that says something like "eye appeal" for a technical grade. What am I missing?

First of all, and many people make this mistake, the ANA standards ARE NOT techncial. The ANA standards are based on market grading. They have been since 1986.

Prior to 1986 the ANA did use a technical grading system, but they changed it in 1986 because they realized it did not work.

Now, to find eye appeal in the ANA standards, 6th edition, start on page 24 where they explain how to use the standards. Here you will find eye appeal mentioned for each individual grade.

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