I've got mail - 1918 Lincoln Commemorative (PCGS)

And there we have it, folks... another, ahem, "fine" excuse for the continued dumbing-down of this hobby.

Now, all gather-round into a little Romper Room circle and tell us what this nwonderful "modern" market grading has done for you today, kiddies... and when finished, everyone gets a gold star!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay, I'll bite - it has made grading make logical sense. Also, the guide that originally CREATED the 70 point technical grading rules for the full set of U.S. coin series, the Official ANA Grading Standards to United States Coins, in its 7th edition EXPLAINS WITHIN ITS OWN PAGES why technical grading both 1) should be learned, and 2) is INADEQUATE!

It's really NOT a good idea to decide to STOP learning about a subject, BooksB4Coins and eddiespin. And if that's not enough for you, maybe the ANA's course called "Grading Coins Today" might educate you further.

But then again, if you are of the "we didn't need it before, we don't need it now" school of numismatic umm, "thought"(?) , perhaps not, eh? 'Cuz after all, of what use is education when you have sufficient stubbornness to substitute for it, right?

 

Kurt, you said in the thread on the reverse proof dimes that you collected proofs, and that you started that way. If that's the case, what did you have to know about technical grading?

Your unflattering position on technical grading is becoming clearer. If you collected proofs, you never had to learn how to technical grade. Proofs had one grade, then, "proof." It was a mindless grade furnished to collectors by the manufacturer. There was no grading challenge collecting proofs. All you did was bought from a dealer or the Mint, instant grade.

As that's the perspective you bring to this hobby, no wonder you fail to perceive the importance of learning how to technical grade. No wonder you don't get that collecting proofs and special Mint set made-to-order novelties present zero challenge to the collector, that's all you've been collecting. No wonder you're OK with made-to-order grades furnished to you by third-party graders, you never learned to grade, but to accept the grades that were furnished to you. No wonder you collect coins as though they're so many commodities. No wonder you fall into market grading.

No wonder you think we who collect business strikes are antiquated because we don't accept that mindless system of "grading," which, again, is premised on the "proof system" of accepting what we're furnished, shutting up, and liking it, besides. Yeah. No wonder...

 

Eddie, I'll put my grading "skills" up against anyone else's anywhere, .... with one proviso. I'm a tough bugger on grades. I usually grade tougher than any TPG. My "pleasant surprise" to "disappointment" ratio when I submit coins runs about 6:1. I do own a few NGC "top pop" coins, all of them intended for circulation types, and all of them submitted by me from raw. Lots more 1 point off of top pop.

Oh, and my ratio of slabs submitted to slabs bought that way is about 50:1, nah, refiguring, 40:1. I've never yet bought a coin because of the grade on a slab, but sure have in spite of it.

Where do you get the chutzpah, Ed?

 

Vivian Kurt Bellman provides an epic retort! I love it. Seriously aside from all the sarcasm and personal stuff, the response to being open about the changing of understandings and nuances in grading is spot on, IMO.

 

I really don't know why so many here want to treat me like I'm some kind of babe-in-the-woods novice. Just makes THEM look like the jackass. Special hint: longevity on CoinTalk is NOT the be-all and end-all. Truth be told, it's actually a weird place with weird rules run by an IT guy, not a coin guy.

 

Kurt, if that's the case, that you're "a tough bugger on grades," on what standards? On NT vs. AT "standards" when it comes to determining whether a coin should grade for tarnish? On eye-appealing vs. eye-unappealing "standards" when it comes to determining numeric grades? If you don't use technical standards, i.e., condition standards, that's what those are, I'm wondering what standards you're using. Fair enough?

My hot-tempered Irish mother.

 

You ask an eminently fair question there, Ed. The starting point, and that's all it is for some coins, and fully enough for others, is the technical standards from the correct guides. (I use that adjective to distinguish from Photograde, which is crap in my opinion.) For a typical mid-grade "honest circulation wear" coin, that's enough, you're done.

Some coins - those with unusually good or bad lustre, unusually good or bad strikes for the issue, toning, within the high AU range or the lowest BU range, require an adjustment for market desirability. Why? Because it makes no logical sense for a higher numeric grade coin to be less demanded in the market, and hence valued, (within the same date/MM/denomination) than a lower one.

The price curve can never be allowed to "bend backwards over itself". In mathematical terms, both the curve and its inverse must represent "functions". Under strict technical standards it does, in the mid AU to low MS range, and again at the stratosphere. Market grading "smoothes out" the wrinkles in the price v. grade curve so that the higher value (again within the single coin number) always has the higher grade.

This is also why damaged coins should never be given a numerical grade. They are "off the maIn sequence" and cannot fit within a single price v. grade curve that doesn't bend backwards upon itself.

None of that requires me to "play along" for my own pieces, just be aware of them for grading purposes.

 

Were you born with such schmuckishness or is it a learned trait, Kurt? Is it normal for you to make assumptions and then take them into these long and ignorant diatribes? As far as I can tell, nothing was said about technical grading being "adequate" or ideal as you seem to think. It is not aperfect system and I'll be the first to admit it, but this does not make your wunnerful "modern system" any better. I suppose both methods have their merits and shortcomings, but what they do have in common is that neither is perfect or even ideal. If you truly believe that your "modern" system of essentially pricing coins is superior to the old, that's great, but you need to come down off of that awfully high horse you like to ride upon. Your assumptions of ignorance, based solely upon the fact someone does not agree with or see something the same as you, says much about your character, sir. Views that do not mirror your own in no way imply a lack of experience with or education on the subject.









.

 

All I am doing here is repeating exactly, to the extent I can without having the books on my lap, what I have been taught in courses taught by the ANA as part of their numismatic diploma program. If you have a quarrel with my understanding of modern grading, take it up with the ANA's course authors. THEY invented the technical standards, and THEY have carefully walked away from them.

You're right, BB4C, about what your disagreement does NOT IMPLY, but what it DOES IMPLY is your unwillingness to remain current.

 

The "PS" post and the reply got removed. No personal insults please.

 

Again, get off of your high horse and stop assuming; this has NOTHING to do with any unwillingness or, as earlier implied, an inability to "remain current". I am well aware of your lauded "modern" standards, but simply disagee with this notion that they are superior, or are for the benefit of this hobby in general. Considering your anti-PCGS rants, I would think you, if anyone, could understand this and see that they are self-serving in nature, regardless of if the ANA agrees or not. You clearly have a brain, so perhaps you should try using it and make your own choices instead of simply following the path others have set for you. To understand technical grading is not going to cause the least bit of harm to a collector, and in fact could serve them well if used wisely.

 

I fully agree with your last sentence if that collector does not stop there, and uses his thorough knowledge of technical grading as a first waypoint on his way to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. I didn't put chapters named “GRADING: IMPORTANCE AND EVOLUTION", "ADVANCED GRADING TECHNIQUES", and “CLOSER FOCUS ON ASPECTS OF GRADING" in the 7th edition of the Official Standards book, Ken Bressett did. And if some random collector does stop after thoroughly mastering technical grading, he has stopped halfway, and is mired in the somewhat distant past. Market grading was already "a thing" almost 20 years ago. It's not that new. Time flies.

By the way, I agree that evolving grading standards are to the TPG firms' benefit by effect, but I'm not cynical enough to go all the way to believing it's by design. I am unaware that Ken Bressett is a compromised figure. Now if Willis or Hall wrote the Official Guide, I agree you'd be onto something.