Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."

The "fringe" is "wear" the fun is found.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Arses are gettin scorched in this thread!
I need to deal one, ight, whos my 1st victim?!
Hmmmmm eeeenie meanie miney mo

 

Apples and oranges.

He's talking about the numismatic definition of damage. I'm talking about the dictionary definition of damage - physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value. If it makes it less confusing for you somehow, then replace "damage" with "harm" when reading my posts in this thread.

Is there anyone here who is seriously going to argue that wear does not physically harm a coin in such a way as to impair its value? If not, then you agree that wear is damage.

I am using the dictionary definition of damage to correlate surface issues like wear with other surface issues like bag marks to show that they are much the same. People get hung up on wear being special and they lose sight of this simple fact. Wear is not special. Wear is damaging to the coin, just like other marks considered to be acceptable.

Anything that happens to the coin that causes an impairment is fundamentally damage. The only difference is whether or not we classify that type of damage as being normal (acceptable but affects grade) or abnormal (details the coin). And why do we classify different types of damage this way - because of how the different types of damage affect eye appeal.

I find it surprising that though many people here take the position that "toning is damage" and throw that phrase all over the place; people are mysteriously not confused by it. And yet, wear is much more damaging to a coin's surfaces than toning is, and people have a problem with applying that term here. That's a big double standard. Unlike light toning that can be dipped off without issue, wear always damages the surfaces and is plain to see.

 

THE Whiff !!!
J/K

 

Unfortunately at the end of the day any real talks always seem to turn into gotcha games and the most important thing always seems to be this,
One thing people should keep in mind is that when it comes to the old days were better posts and how things have gone down hill there are posters defending their careers and legacies at the time and the changes threaten that.

 

I’ll agree there were better posts before Jan 6, 2016. Then it all went downhill.
But more entertainment has been added since.

 

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king...

 

It's a circular argument many of the old timers here go to again and again. Essentially that "the standard is correct because it is the standard." They do not care to visit the possibility that the standard itself may be lacking, and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption of the infallible. They are so opposed to progress that they do not see evolving standards for what they really are: clear evidence that the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place.

 

Unfortunately, you hit the nail right on the head. It seems any legitimate discussions is met by personal insults and then the old guard circles around each other without any real conversation or debate.

 

Change can often be good and there is always room for evolving. However, I’d argue that changing standards needs to benefit the hobby (not just those that stand to directly profit from it).

There are changes that would benefit collectors: let’s say certifying any coin that deserves it with the PL or DMPL designation (PCGS might finally change this but they still haven’t officially). Another would be adding more finalizers/quality reviewers to lower the amount of “mechanical errors” from the TPGs.

Then there are changes that don’t help most: market grading and calling AU coins MS. Eye appeal is very important for coins and it would be better to teach people to strive for the most appealing coins (regardless of the number on the slab). Changing an AU 58 to a 63 so it has a higher number than a beat up MS 60 helps the TPG get resubmissions and allows those who got the upgrade to profit. A novice doesn’t necessarily learn why that coin was so special; they just lean on the number now being higher.

 

I agree with the above suggestions, though adding more finalizers will add to cost. I'm sure they have weighed the cost of staff versus fixing mistakes and accept it as the cost of doing business.

Your underlying assumption is that it matters if the coin is AU or MS. I'm saying that mode of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and that only eye appeal is relevant. I would argue the flip side; that the AU58 in your example should have a grade of 63 (no MS prefix) and the MS60 should have a grade of perhaps 55 to 60 (again no prefix). The AU or MS prefixes complicate grading and are a barrier for people to simply look at it as a seamless quality scale based on eye appeal. Much simpler. Again, wear is not special. It's just another impairment to eye appeal. We should stop treating it so differently.

 

In my opinion, this is exactly the way the TPG's should have went. Sorry, but a standard is a standard. I work with plenty of engineers from civil, mechanical, electrical, etc. and standards mean something - and are certainly not open to interpretation or ego driven opinions. The alphabet goes from A to Z where I come from - and that's a standard, too. I'll stick to the grading that I was brought up on and will follow the advice my uncle gave me thirty plus years ago - buy the coin you like, grade it and price it yourself.

I honestly don't know how any of this can be an argument. Doug has said it emphatically and many agree - wear is wear. I have a worn copy of Photograde (the buffalo pages are pretty beat up) that still does the trick for me. I am perfectly fine if they want to give it a green bean for exceptional toning or a purple unicorn (fictional) for fully split bands - but an AU coin is still an AU coin.

 

baseball21, posted: "Unfortunately at the end of the day any real talks always seem to turn into gotcha games and the most important thing always seems to be this,
One thing people should keep in mind is that when it comes to the old days were better posts and how things have gone down hill there are posters defending their careers and legacies at the time and the changes threaten that.


This is the third time you have made is accusation without any backup. The rules here say that members don't need to defend their, ah...Let's say honest opinion by identifying the posters here on CT you talking about. Your silence says it all.


Jaelus, posted: "It's a circular argument many of the old timers here go to again and again. Essentially that "the standard is correct because it is the standard."
[No, the OLD standard was correct because IT WAS THE STANDARD. It was easy to understand and easy to apply. It still is. In the OLD standard, MS coins were free from wear. Powerful people changed the standard WHILE CONTUINING TO PUBLISH IT as if it were still true! The NEW "Standard" that introduces more subjectivity is what exists today. That does not make it correct, or easy to apply. That's why CAC was needed. Talk about a circle. The graders grading the graders who have already been graded by the grading Finalizer.

"They do not care to visit the possibility that the standard itself may be lacking, and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption of the infallible. They are so opposed to progress that they do not see evolving standards for what they really are: clear evidence that the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place."

This statement is pure NUTS! But let's examine it...

1. "...the standard itself may be lacking [What was lacking in the old standard?], and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption [I consider calling an AU coin MS to be a huge corruption] of the infallible."[infallible ? ]

2. "..They are so opposed to progress." Progress is good. Dumb the folks down and take the grade jump profits to the bank.

3. "...the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place." Yeah, decades of numismatists were wrong but it sure made it more difficult to over grade coins. Thankfully, the grading issue was corrected by 1988. NOT! STILL NOT. and NEVER going to happen using the present "standards" some of you favor.

 

Theoretically you could have the argument of bumping down the 60 and bumping up the 58, but in practice all we would see is people having to spend money on regrading coins like the 58 while the 60 would remain in its slab as most wouldn’t spend money to lower the grade to whatever the new scale said.

It would be easier to just teach people to focus on eye appeal. A circulated example can be nicer than an uncirculated example. A 58 can be better than a 60. One doesn’t need to change the scale but rather the way of interpreting the scale (and it is already seen as quite a few collectors will pay more for a 58 than a 60 or even a 63).

 

Case in point. Stuck on wear and standards being infallible (means incapable of being wrong since you seem confused). Wear is not special! Get that through your head and it will open your eyes to the correctness of market grading.

Standards are replaced by newer better versions that depreciate the old set of standards in many industries. You guys act like that can't happen, but it can and does.

 

I don't disagree with you. That is definitely one way of doing it, however, if new slabs dropped the grade prefixes it would be obvious that the MS60 was graded under an outdated standard and that would also prevent any problems.

I agree that it's simpler for people to just learn about eye appeal and the conditions that can impair a coin's surfaces, without wear being treated differently. Excessive wear is just a surface condition that lowers eye appeal and therefore grade, just like any other surface condition would. And yes that would mean circulated coins with amazing eye appeal could get a significant bump and technically graded circulated dogs could get downgraded. As they should be.

 

All areas where "standards" have changed over the years, or should we build planes based off the standards of the middle ages, how about space travel based off of Roman engineering standards?

The simple fact of the A-Z alphabet even existing was a change from the previous language standard.

This idea that I learned something so it can never ever change is very dangerous and holds back knowledge

Buying what you like is always the way to go though

My silence only happens to people not interested in actual discussions.

Guess we should go back to segregation, allowing actual cocaine in sodas, believing the earth was flat as well among other things because after all that was the standard so it must be correct right?

 

double post for some reason

 

You’re spot on... that’s exactly what I do. In my book, high AU coins with great eye-appeal are more valuble than low-end MS coins. I paid way over price guide for some of my AU58s and they are all damaged... errrm... have minimal wear :-D

 

Just to elaborate a little more the thing a lot of people don't seem to be realizing or are intentionally ignoring is that EVERY standard that has been mentioned was a change from previous standards.

The grading standards of the 70s that some are championing or even prior was a change from before as coin collecting is MUCH older than anyone alive, the A-Z alphabet was a change from previous languages, a foot was not always the standard of measurement and it goes on and on and on and on.

The only things that have never changed throughout history is that everyone dies, everyone was born, everyone needs oxygen, everyone needs liquids, and everyone needs to eat. Aside from that every standard has either changed or was a change from the previous one.