Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

Too many cross references...........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe the poster was saying it could be a supplement. Since digital photography has gotten so much better, TPGs are building a database of coins. You would then input the coins into a computer, the more the better. The computer algorithm would basically cross reference the thousands of already graded coins and come up with a number. Then, the grader takes a look at it, checks for the cleaning, eye appeal and determines a final grade. All Im saying is most disputes concerning grades have to do with surface preservation. Computers can be far more accurate than humans in this one aspect and may add consistency to grades while in no way ever replacing a human.

 

Desk Set........

You'll never eliminate the 'human' element......

 

How could Machine Grading ever take luster into account?

Luster isn't just "shininess" but an aesthetic that is so dependent on the human eye that it couldn't possibly be replicated by a computer.

 

This isn't "tried to get." This patent was issued to PCGS in 1992.

 

And what might that have to do with the talent of the authenticators/graders at those services compared with those at PCGS and NGC. Are you aware of all the shuffling that goes on inside each of the 4 main TPGS. Several principles have moved around (and some returned) over the years. The latest "defection" was M.S. who left PCGS to join NGC.

 

That may be true, but it hasn't resulted in a war. There was too much bad publicity between the two companies which produced a negative perception in the marketplace.

Chris

 

Technically the computer could scan the surface and model the resulting reflections

 

Has anyone here ever seen an actual coin in a genuine, top 4 TPGS MS-66 slab that contained a coin that was truly an MS-64 or lower? I DON'T THINK SO. There are plenty of these coins in the "also-rans" services. I've examined naked-eye AU-53's in MS-67 slabs! So, l bet our moderator is just making a point. Making sure each of us gets it without any ambiguity. I do that all the time too.

 

Computer grading has been tried (Compugrade and the PCGS "thing") many years ago - It didn't work then and doesn't work now. That said, it should eventually come to the hobby.

 

Actually it's about the evolution of the grading standards from the time (green banknote label only) PCI was in business and today. The same can be said about NGC and PCGS. I have three Proof Franklins in MS-63, and 64 Cameo holders bought in 1968 that all grade 66 to 67 (according to a TPG) today! I'm not cracking them either as they prove that the standards have changed. Ever see how many dealers try to by PCGS "rattlers?" Almost a guaranteed up-grade.

 

AMEN!

The truth often hurts.

 

Actually, I was in a VW dealership today to redeem my $500 gift card, a $500 credit card for future dealer services, a 3 yr. free road service plan, and something else I already forgot (old age). Business was booming only 2 sales people out of what looked like at least a dozen were idle. Audi had the same problem with image many, many years ago. Today that company continues to build world beating race and street cars (not as good as Porsches). The VW,Porsche/Audi brands are doing OK in spite of billions more to loose. I'm using my VW Visa at the FUN show to buy something lustrous...I mean "shiny."!

 

I have heard (not confirmed as of yet) that the graders at at least one major grading service are using decimals for internal used only. This may not be true as it would take $$$$ to program changes into the computer codes.

 

Amen, and so would any system that was devised. As Doug said, the ANA Grading guide was never followed in the beginning or since. IMO, today it is getting almost obsolete. I think the powers to be know this and know that it is time for a total revision. However, the introduction to the ANA Grading Guide should be required reading for all dealers/collectors.

 

I have read in Numismatic News and other places over the years that the FIRST professional grading service at the International Numismatic Society's Authentication Bureau was grading coins for their customers (at no additional cost) several months before the ANA. The principals at that service included the founding Director/grader/authenticator at ANACS (Charles Hoskins) before the Certification Service was moved to Colorado. As soon as the ANA started to charge for its opinions on grade, INSAB did the same. Both services along with one NCI (?) - the name slips me at the moment were in business long before the "big two" we have now. As I posted somewhere else, ANACS was forces to become Market graders while the technical grading done by INSAB eventually forced them out of any competition.

 

It all boils down to this BUT it cannot happen:

1. The perfect grading system would be simple to use and understand.
2. The perfect grading system would be precise. EACH TIME A COIN WAS SUBMITTED NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME PASSED, IT WOULD BE GRADED THE SAME AS LONG AS IT WAS IN THE SAME STATE OF PRESERVATON AS WHEN FIRST GRADED.

Now think about this. Paper Money grading can appear to be precise because each note is an individual with a serial #. It CAN be graded the same by the original grader. If it is cracked out and sent to another grader thay too will have a record of that note by#.

In the same way, if PGCS and NGC take photos of each submission with enough resolution they can add the "perceived" precision that they seek to imply. So, if we can take the subjectivity out of it (assuming the coin remains the same) by computer ID; the only difference of opinion will be on some identical coins at each service. Now, suppose we were to link computer ID systems of the 2 companies? Bingo, any non-matches for the same coin (perhaps dipped or doctored) could be adjudicated and one final grade given.
No more different opinions except by us little people out here who like to grade using our own personal standards.

 

There are many things that the 'human element' has been eliminated from. Don't say never.

 

I have read that AI will do us all in.

 

PCGS trying to do it in the 90s compared to the computers today is like pilots trying to break the sound barrier in the 20s. It can be done today, it still can't replace a human. But it can eliminate surface preservation errors without a doubt. It would take a HUGE investment to do it right.