New Grading System

NGC just branching out looking to grab more audience.
Just in case you need a visual.
There are 3 columns.
We could complicate things making 3 tiers

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The metric "system" of numismatic grading, is established on a false premise of judgement of superiority.

This decimal system, or metrics, was developed for the purpose of measuring metre and litre and gram...or substitute the words weight and length and capacity if preferred.

None of these 'metric" approaches have a relation to numismatic grading of wear/originality/ eye appeal/rarity/quality or opinion.

Sheldon, and the latest decimal experiment by NGC (and it is nothing new and has been tried before) is casting different types of lures in the water to achieve recognition as a superb fisherman, when it is simply a monetary bastardization of the commodity.

The latest marketing ploy...and that is all it is... is to explore the possibility of a profit center that may be a competitive answer to JA and his definitive improvements for the collector, introduced by him in 2007 to combat the egregious decline of numismatic grading. It is the future, and is here and will prevail over the present failure of TPGs that have concentrated on "market grading" for profit, instead of quality grading for the collector.

Yes, I understand Sheldon and the purpose and basis of development. In its way, it too was and is a marketing method to counteract greed. It serves well even today for that purpose.

But, does any coin collector believe that a finite explanation/definition of a decimal difference between, say, a 96 and 94 is obtainable and would not produce a quagmire of quality? Then why not the silliness of a 5.0 vs. a 5.2 comic grade? I refer all to the philatelic experiment. We have hands on knowledge how that went...a system also bastardized to monetarily exploit collectors.

Adapting it to a CAC/CACG Model of quality would not benefit the collector. It would be profit exploitation, and that is all.

Fire away.

 

Main problem I see is that in comics, there is no 8.3, 8.8, 9.1, 9.3, nor 9.7. I get it, but I don't like it.

Also, Spinal Tap slabs go up to 11.0

 

I would definitely need a visual, especially the row on the right.

 

My biggest problems with that:
1. Younger collectors usually don't buy graded items often. They usually can't afford them.
2. While there might be some overlap in people that collect comic books, sports cards, trading cards etc. and coins, most collectors find one thing they like and stick to them.
3. If one cares about bringing younger people into the hobby, and will fully admit this is just my personal opinion here, I think it would be better to educate them to existing systems of grading, rather than dumbing things down to their level. This is an attitude I've always had about knowledge and education in general.

 

AG-3 and FR-2 are both 1.5?

 

Yeah, wouldn't that wreak havoc in the lowball registry competition?

My collection certainly has a lot more coins in the "1.5 range" than the "9+ range". There's a world of variation among the lowest-graded coins, and I do not buy into any attempt to collapse that part of the range.

 

To be honest, the origin of the Sheldon scale was rather stupid. All based on the premise that a VF20 large cent is worth 20 times what a P1 is worth, AU50 worth 50x, MS70 worth 70x, etc. It's unfortunate that we appear to be stuck with his lunacy for all time. It's also kinda dumb that we have 10 MS grades and only two EF grades.

 

Hey nothing is perfect but the Sheldon scale is widely accepted, which is no small feat.

 

IMO, TPG's will never give up on their 100 point wet dream, which is all decimal grading is anyway.

Anyone remember the 1979-80 Delusions-A-Go-Go? You know where everyone stumbled into town to be an "Astute Coin Investor?" When a coin was a 70 as long as Norman Bates didn't attack it with a machete? Another episode such as that just might make their wet dream come true.

 

Yes, it is and serves a purpose, but is not adaptable to the entirety of the hobby, and NGC auditioning their version of The Sting will not make it more so, and that is good for the hobby as a whole.

 

You hit the nail on the head, it is simply the small number of NGCX graded coins that makes it a challenge. Modern proofs are like widgets, readily available in PF70 for every date, but NGCX coins are hard to find. The only problem is that NGC still doesn't allow NGCX coins in their registry which is ridiculous.

 

Well, that seems... yeah, what you already said. Maybe they realized that the math to map 10-point-scale grades into the registry rankings would make them look even sillier.

 

It is a really easy conversion for the uncirculated grades: NGCX grade x 10 -30.

 

All they would need is a lookup table and a simple join in their database code. The problem is the NGCX 1.5 grade, which is both FR2 and AG3. That part is dumb. Why didn't they just start with zero? P01 could have been 0.5 and there wouldn't be a problem.

 

Adding 30 "points" of range to the Sheldon scale, and then just establishing a one-to-one correspondence between assignable grades in the old system and the new one: that's silly.

Assigning FR2 and AG3 to the same grade in the new system: that's silly and insulting. But I'm sure they don't care about insulting "collectors" who would ever even consider buying or selling a coin at that end of the scale.

Gotta keep PO1 distinct, though -- gotta keep those sweet lowball submission dollars flowing.

 

They're really missing out on that end of the market though, by not starting with zero. My 0.3 is lower than your 0.4! Nyah-nyah!

What cracks me up are the PO01 slabs with the CAC sticker. Uh, it's better for the grade? Don't you want worse for the grade? But I digress.

 

I asked the same thing in another thread. The answer made sense, at least as much sense as the entire bean-chase subgenre.

I'm still guessing a gold bean would be bad news for a lowball candidate, since it seems to mean "should have graded higher", but I don't know how that stuff folds into registry calculations. Maybe a gold bean still gets you placed higher in a lowball competition, in which case we'll see people repeatedly cracking out and resubmitting coins in hopes of getting a ridiculously low grade, which they can then submit in hopes of getting a gold bean...

 

I been collecting since well before the advent of TPG’s. I do not remember any widespread acceptance of the Sheldon scale before the advent of TPG’s… But then I was a kid dealing with kid coins too…. But were we using the Sheldon scale to any prolific extent before the TPG’s changed our hobby?

 

The ANA adopted it in 1977. Apparently dealers started blending it with the adjective grades in the mid-70s. Like you, my earliest collection years it was all P, FR, G, VG, F, VF, EF, AU and BU. It was up to you to decide if the dealer's grade was correct, or if one AU was better than another one.