Bean Wars - CAC

Here are the Heritage photos.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like a job for an automated system.

Yes, I know that computer grading was tried and failed in the past. I imagine part of the reason for that failure was that most people don't WANT a truly objective, well-defined, and static system -- they want some consideration of ineffable "eye appeal" that can't be evaluated by a computer, but "they know it when they see it".

And I'm sure they do know it when they see it. The problem is, no two people will ever see it exactly the same way, and any one person is unlikely to see it exactly the same way over time.

At least with a computerized system you'd have objectivity, testability, consistency, and well-defined criteria. But it looks like that's not what "the market" wants.

 

Getting a little Yoda on us aren't you!

 

Well, I will admit I'm greedy in wanting all the toned Lincoln's I can find.

 

CAC makes sense if you catch a grade from PCGS or NGC which is on the upside of a steep, steep value break point. For example, if you catch a 65 on an 1891 Morgan from Philly (dealer bid jumps from $800 at 64 to $7350 at 65) or New Orleans (jump from $725 to $7100)..send it in. the green bean is like a reinsurance policy for whomever buys the coin from you. the benefit of getting the green bean is worth the expense of missing it.

others. 1884-S Morgan jumps from $225 in AU to $7300 in 60; 1881-O jumps from $1650 in 64 to $25,000 in 65.

Regrettably, I have found myself on the downside of several of these breakpoints....

 

With coins such as this 1911 in BN there is no real breakpoint for grade. Color and toning drives the price.

 

Which reminds me that I've been so busy and lazy that I haven't remembered to send your package!

 

Agreed, I have to laugh at a 'guess the grade' with opinions of 62 & 61, etc.

No one here can tell the difference with a one point scale differential -- especially with pictures, and especially thru 2 X 2 holders.

that explains many of my grade opinions.

 

Yeah, I didn't want to tackle that one. You're the right man for this job. It's about time you explained something to @GDJMSP, the rest of us are getting tired. You can lead an old horse to water, but, you can't make him drink.

 

I talked to JA today. When the coin was stickered approximately to years ago, JA and the CAC graders were on the fence in stickering early Lincoln's with this toning color and luster. He feels MS70 at some point may have been used to clean the coin, something he had noticed when removing PVC with MS70 in the past. They have now put in place a policy not to pass copper with this look.

He also said the coin looked MS66 and had thoughts of even putting a gold bean on the slab, but in the end decided to stay with the new policy. He did offer to buy the coin or pay the difference between the two grades. I told him that I would have bought the coin if it was stickered or not,

He ended up giving me credit for 5 of my 6 submissions that passed.

 

Spot on about the number of categories....I've felt that why for as long as I can remember. The fact of the matter is you can't have precision when the basic measurement system (ie grading) is inherently inaccurate and subjective. It's like trying to measure the length of a car with a ruler with 1/8 inch markings while the car is speeding by you at 80 MPH.

However, the TPGs would rather you depend on them for grading so selling the idea of "precision" will bring them in more revenue.

jom

 

In other words, their invisible policy governing subjective opinions is also subjective? A transforming policy should eliminate consistency between past beaned submissions and future ones, much like any other TPG we may encounter inconsistency complaints about. What is their definition of this look or toning color or luster, the blue AT?

Nice to see that the squeaky wheel gets credit for 5 out of 6 submissions.

 

I understand your view. Most people, maybe even most AI practitioners, would agree with it.

Me, I'm not so sure. I'm starting to think that "thinking" isn't all it's cracked up to be -- that it's mostly illusion and perspective. But that's getting way off into philosophy, if not religion.

When I look at the level of consistency that we're seeing from the TPGs, I have a gut feeling that the machine-vision and machine-learning folks could already put together a system that would yield more consistent results. It would require a good bit of work up-front, but could be reproduced and deployed pretty cheaply (as in "much less than the price difference between those 64 and 65 1881-O Morgans").

But, again, that's not what the market wants.

 

It would be good to have a team of undisputed experts agree on the examples presented to the machine.

Since facial recognition software incorporated skin texture into its analysis procedures, there is really no reason why coin grading should present any sort of challenge.

Most people discuss and analyze coin grading in terms of specifics, details, consistency, etc. Sounds awful scientific when you start considering consistent wear patterns on high points and amounts of designs still remaining. Calling grading an art does not come close to reality. Why give it such an ambiguous distinction? How many sunflowers did Van Gogh paint and how many are consistent with the first painting? Do you really want someone who considers themselves an artist to grade your coins? Pompous and unrealistic sounding, if you ask me.