3RD party Graders.

There is a place AND value from having choices.

If nothing else it shows us the future - or have people forgotten when the knock was "XYZ does [sneer] market grading and the real companies will never do that"

Someday somebody will move us away from the 70 point Sheldon scale because it has no rational basis.

Remember when Compugrade did decimals? We're half way there with + and CAC.
Remember when Accugrade did separate grades for strike and surface... * grades are here...

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like something NGC's popular and successful Ancient grading service does now.

 

Accugrade did decimal grading for a short time five years before Compugrade. People laughed at them because grading individual numbers was hard enough, the idea that you could subdivide the grades further was ridiculous
Back during ANACS's photocertificate era they graded obverses and reverses separately, plus they also had ratings for Strike, Surfaces, Luster, and eye appeal.

 

I can't say I'm completely against finer granularity in grading practice, especially when it disconnects eye appeal from technical grade.

 

I think this just flew over my head. I think the part "finer granularity" means decimals are OK. Right? If so, me too.

I don't understand anything after: "especially when...." Care to explain?

 

I've always liked the separated designations for surface quality and color. DLRC does that, and I like it. It infuriates me when a coin with MS63 marks can be MS64 because (in the judgement of some) it's "pretty."

If you disconnect that crap from technical grade, you won't need decimals.

 

The basic problem is the 'ugly' MS64 vs. the 'nice' MS63, with beauty always in the eye of the beholder (e.g. toned coins).

Which one do you want?

The sharply struck but slightly mushy details from an older die MS63
or the new die but weakly struck MS64...

The Morgan with ONE ding right under her nose? Or the Morgan with a clean field but lots of little dings & scrapes on her cheeks?

These are the reasons a single grade doesn't adequately describe the coin.

 

Thanks, get it. Now see if you agree. Right or wrong, needed, wanted or not liked/wanted - decimals can be used to break down (refine) a grade (technical or commercial) just as a "PQ", star or +. So WHEN they are used in the future, fine. We'll all get accustomed to them.

IMO, every point of grading should be separated but the grade would be very complicated: M-2,S-7, C-7,E-8,PL That's just the obverse! Things like this have been proposed for decades.

Remember I'm an old time technical grader who does not like commercial grading; yet here is a problem to think about: TPGS's claim to put a commercial value on a coin and eye-appeal (a catch-all for all the coin's attributes) its one of the major factors that affects its value. So, the way grading is now practiced, a pretty coin is worth more than one that is not.

 

I think a big part of it goes back to the creation of the 401(k) and the possibility that rare coins we're going to be included as permitted assets.

In order to become an investment for the masses, rare coins have to be pretty liquid (easy to sell on a moment's notice or even sight unseen).

If the only way to sell them is via a dealer with an old-fashioned technical grade and a detailed old fashioned coin description? The asset class can't handle the value and volume that would have been there.

TPG grading is an attempt to assign a single grade (=value) to every coin, with all MS63 1888S Morgan dollars basically interchangeable.

The problem is that most people with even a moderately experience eye can look at 2 coins and say this one is better than this one. But the grade doesn't tell you that.

Which leads us back to the Plus in the star and the decimal grades and 69 vs 70 for modern coins...

 

I have no problem with this; I just don't think decimal places are necessary.

How do I teach someone how many marks - and where - equal MS63 when I then have to say, "but not when it's pretty; then that many marks equal MS64? And if you're not a toning fan, you might not even think it's pretty but you gotta give it 64 anyways?"

Bull. It's Net/Details grading in reverse - "MS63, Net 64."

Bull. Where do the TPG's get off telling me what I think is a nice coin by forcing me up a grade for it?

Save the numbers for technical grading. Offer a + or a - for closeness to the next grade either way like they already do, some other special designation (maybe a scale of A-D or something) for surface designation (you gotta account for the near-PL, blazing luster and hammered-strike types as well as toning, and that scale can be positive as well as negative for poor strikes or subdued luster) and let the market decide whether they think that's worth extra or less money.

Offer additional Registry pints for superior surfaces. The ones who use the Registry for the equivalent of....anatomical measurement will flock to it like the lemmings they are. The ones who use the Registry just to showcase their collections non-competitively won't care either way.

Ugly toning either gets that minus I mentioned, or a Net grade of it's so bad you're busting the technical grade down. Toning that bad is tarnish, and probably qualifies as Environmental Damage.

 

How is that any different than the past? The whole reason someone buys something is because it pleases their eye.

 

@SuperDave said: I have no problem with this; I just don't think decimal places are necessary. I agree but they are coming. I have heard they are being used INTERNALLY by the graders at one TPGS already.

@SuperDave sais: How do I teach someone how many marks - and where - equal MS63 when I then have to say, "but not when it's pretty; then that many marks equal MS64? And if you're not a toning fan, you might not even think it's pretty but you gotta give it 64 anyways?" I don't find ANY PROBLEM with teaching ANYONE how to grade and I'll bet you don't either. So this is a non-problem for me making it hard to reply.

Try this: You , me, and our mythical student here will eventually develop our own PERSONAL standards and judgment of style, art, and beauty. However, the TPGS's set the INDUSTRY STANDARDS so you, me, and our student better know what's going on in the "BIG WORLD" or we failed as a teacher.

"Pretty" is in the eye of the beholder. Beautiful toning/tarnish/corrosion can raise or lower the TECHNICAL GRADE. [BTW, that was one of the downfalls of TRUE technical grading as "strike" and "eye appeal" were not factored in to the final grade.]

@SuperDave Said: Bull. It's Net/Details grading in reverse - "MS63, Net 64." Yes, I think you got it and don't forget about MS-64, NET 63!

@SuperDave Said: Bull. Where do the TPG's get off telling me what I think is a nice coin by forcing me up a grade for it? Although many of your opinions are good, NO ONE OF ANY IMPORTANCE CARES WHAT YOU (me and our student for that matter) THINK/DO
with regards to numismatics. They don't even consider that you exist so they do not TELL you anything. It's very humbling. We are worthless little "specks."

Need Proof? I have tried on several occasions to get TPGS graders to chime in on these questions and they laugh. Except in a few cases - Jay Turner and Dave Lange on the NGC forum - come to mind; NO ONE CARES. I think I can speak for you here also when I say "I don't care what the TPGS's think either ...BUT I STUDY THE WAY THEY GRADE so as not to be ignorant of market standards.

@SuperDave said: Save the numbers for technical grading. There is no technical grading that I know of being practiced COMMERCIALLY outside a seminar classroom. If someone uses this system (as I do) for their personal standards that's fine. Just remember; NO ONE CARES what we do!

 

The TPG's only set "industry standards" because we allow them to. And those "industry standards" are measurably looser than the "industry standards" we practiced before we started letting people with a vested interest in looser grading tell us how to think.

Nobody will ever make me believe I can't make a difference, or I don't matter. I'm not a victim mentality, and the harder anyone tries to force my opinions into obscurity, the more difficult they will find me to move. If I'm the only person out here trying to effect change into a grading regimen where wear is still wear, then I'll be the only person. That's fine with me. Goals do not have to be achievable to be worthy.

 

@SuperDave said: The TPG's only set "industry standards" because we allow them to. You make a VERY BAD STUDENT What part of YOU DON"T MATTER OR HAVE ANYTHING to do with it don't you understand. And those "industry standards" are measurably looser than the "industry standards" we practiced before we started letting people with a vested interest in looser grading tell us how to think. Yes! That's the point we both are making! You better know the "new" standards (as they keep changing) or you are going to leave some money on the table in your dealings.

@SuperDave Said: Nobody will ever make me believe I can't make a difference True, AND NO ONE CARES what you believe!, or I don't matter YOU DON'T, no one on CT matters in the big picture . I'm not a victim mentality, and the harder anyone tries to force my opinions into obscurity [NOTE: You, me, and all the old guys are going to be dead in a few more years = OBSCURITY. Things will keep changing as we hold out to old standards and they will change even faster when we are gone and cannot talk about "the old way." , the more difficult they will find me to move.No one cares to move you from your opinion. You, I and our opinions will move further and further into the La-La land of wackos! If I'm the only person out here trying to effect change into a grading regimen where wear is still wear, then I'll be the only person. That's fine with me. Goals do not have to be achievable to be worthy. Best of luck friend, I have learned to throw away my buggy whip, get with the program, and flow with the times.

 

Then you're a quitter, letting someone else dictate the course of your life. I'm not, and I won't.

 

Would you stop with all the color crap? It makes your post look childish and very hard to read.

 

NO. It's pretty and raises the grade!

You can choose to ignore me BECAUSE my opinion does not matter much on anything either.

When I insert an opinion in a different color within the text of another member, it is faster for me (I'm busy) and there is less chance of messing up his/my thoughts.

CT is suppose to be fun! Yes?

 

Do you want people to read what you post or do you want them to believe you are nothing but a childish clown? Act like an adult.

 

Not when I'm writing to @SuperDave. I'll send him a colorful PM next time.

Read Post#37 again. FUN!

Signed: Peter Pan

 

I really really believe! I do hope Tinkerbell will be okay.