Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."

@baseball21

Certainly, standards do change. But in the field of engineering as I mentioned, the changes are well documented and communicated to all users. To do otherwise is chaos. Kindly post a link to the documentation or news releases that went out from any of the TPG's that stated grading standards were changing as I can't seem to find any.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is that the root of some of this? The silence of the TPG's on the matter of nice AUs getting MS grades?

 

To answer your question: they largely mean exactly the same thing. They may have slightly different implications, depending on the context, but they can be used interchangeably with no harm.

 

Thanks, physics. I just about ignored my own thread here

 

How about this?

Condition: a coin’s state of preservation.
Grade: A numerical or symbolic notation to easily communicate the coin’s condition.

The only problem I see is that collectors don’t want to think for themselves and automatically assume that a 58 HAS to be worth less than higher grades. Graders at the TPGs knew better, and decided to think for these collectors and initiated market grading, creating a hot mess to which there was no standard.

In the world of ancient and medieval coins, collectors have to learn how to spot fakes/tooling themselves, and they need to learn what is typical/premium for a type. There are no numbers used in the grade because it is pointless. No one cares if there is a touch of wear or if one coin has more contact mark than the other. A nice coin is recognized as a nice coin, and its value reflects this. A premium coin is recognized as such, and its value gets the appropriate premium because the collector themselves recognize it.

When you commoditize something like US coins and bring in TPGs, then you take the thinking out of collecting, and you have few collectors who recognize that an AU-68 is more valuable than an MS-62.

 

Why should collectors learn the existing system when it is flawed and confusing? Can you think of another collectible market where you can have something that grades lower on the appropriate scale, but is of higher quality and value?

The nonsensical 1-58 and 60-70 dual scale creates problems like determining whether or not high point rub is circulation wear or cabinet rub. But it doesn't matter. I agree that wear is wear. It does not matter where high point rub came from, because it does not especially matter if there is a touch of wear on the coin. Long time collectors have simply become conditioned to believe that it matters.

But...

Wear is not special. It is simply another form of surface impairment that affects eye appeal. In the ancients market we see a good, widely-accepted example of this understanding within numismatics, and this philosophy is reflected in the general rejection of slabbing by ancients collectors.

 

Here we go again. A non sensical and inflammatory statement, not to mention whimsical. And definitely not a reason to change the definition of AU. This is exactly why threads were better back in the day.

AU is a condition - MS is a condition.
An AU coin should never attain the status of MS. Period
This type of action defies what every collector should be learning.

The standards are in no way flawed, what is flawed is the way a dealer/newbie or un-educated person acts when they don't get there way.
It is fairly easy to see that you fit at least one of those category's. And the TPG's have catered to those just like you. They cut off their nose despite their face.

You might think we all went off on a tangent but we didn't. Condition and grade used to be the same thing. It used to be easily defined, but market grading is defying every aspect of how the majority of us were educated, not to mention the generations before us.

The change is nothing more than a way to fatten their pocket book. It is meant to gain submissions. And does nothing more than benefit the TPG.

 

The original system was just G/VG/F/VF/EF/FDC. No numbers. No AU/UNC Not confusing at all. Only moderns are subjected to the numbers. The rest of numismatics gets by just perfectly without numbers.

But what if the TPGs introduced a system where if a coin has no wear, it gets graded on an UNC-6x system, and a coin with a touch of wear gets graded on an AU-6x system. The differentiating factor between 58 and 60 is the presence of wear in the fields. That way we get the best of both worlds.

Is it 63 or a 64? Is it worth $5000 more because it is a 64 instead of a 63. IT DOES NOT MATTER! Some UNCs are better than others. Trying to grade coins on a 11-point scale (or 21-point scale if you include + grades) without firm standards is plain insanity. It only serves to allow collectors to participate in an ego contest.

 

Guns. Books. Comic books. Anything where a grade can be improved by restoration, but the value is lower than “worse-grade” examples.

 

Exactly. The problem is that it seems there is a lack of critical thinking ability or just sheer stubbornness that doesn't allow many to actually give a good reason for why there should be two scales. We just keep hearing because that's how it should be or because I learned that or because so and so said so.

I've yet to see a legitimate argument how there is a benefit for a such flawed archaic system. I've seen a lot of name calling, a lot of this is how I want it to be, a lot of personal attacks, a lot of I don't want to have to relearn, a lot of I shouldn't have to keep learning ect ect but no logical well thought out argument for the benefits of two scales acting as one.

This is a great way to state it at it's simplest form.

 

A good point, but ignore restoration. Since that would improve a coin's eye appeal but render it ungradeable, it's not really comparable.

 

It depends how you define restoration.
A coin that is dipped can be “restored” to remove surface contaminants and then still be gradeable. It has also been seen where gold coins have been “restored” with putty and then still graded.

 

Lightly-used vs brand new with manufacturing defect. I’d imagine this is important with collectible toys.

 

Do that with a gun, and you murder the value

 

Conservation is different. Restoration is repairing damage on the coin. In the event that a doctored coin is not detected by the graders, it is a mistake.

 

Except I was asking you about a specific coin from the first post. I have seen you mention some TPGs by name in your criticisms but not all.

My question again was about the NGC 65* to the ICG 67+ for the 1832 Large Letter Capped Bust Half. Pcgs has 6 MS 64s and 1 MS 66 with nothing higher according to their population report at the time of this posting....

 

The ORIGINAL post by JCro57:
Though many feel these terms are synonymous and are used interchangeably, there is a difference between them, correct?
"Condition" refers to the state a coin is in: Fine, Very Good, Mint State, Extra Fine, etc.
The "Grade" refers to the numerical score out of 70 on the ANA-modified version of the Sheldon Scale.
Thus MS62 = Mint State condition, graded 62/70 on the Sheldon Scale.
The exception is a proof coin which really isn't a "condition" but a specially-prepared planchet, though they can be graded obviously (PR69).
Do I have this right?
My opinion is still the same. They are not synonymous since condition means much more than GRADE. It means the physical problems of the coin. Is the wear on a coin leading to its GRADE a physical problem? Grade doesn't cover rim nicks, holes, corrosion and a host of other problems. It only covers the amount of wear on a coin and in the case of the Big Boy TPG's the amount of marks on the coin. That is a condition. I believe all coins from 1 to 69 should be details Graded and the condition mentioned. I've said this in another post.
I also agree what the moderator has said above. If you are the right BIG BOY dealer sending a coin into the BIG BOY TPGS, you can be assured your coin will get a straight grade MS. Maybe many remember the 1888-O VAM 4 that started life as an AU-58 and after conservation and a few resubmissions became an MS-61 and if I'm in error, a 62. Look at my properly details graded SEGS AU-58 1893-s posted on page 4 of this thread and look at the PCGS pictures on the top of page 4. My coin has less obverse marks and properly noted spot on reverse rim. Although it is larger than the SPOTS on the reverse of the PCGS picture, my coin has full but uncleaned luster on the reverse and full breast feathers. I'm sure if this coin was submitted by a BIG BOY dealer to a BIG BOY TPG it could be graded MS 62 even though there is rub on the cheek. CONDITION means much more than GRADE. I'm sure those dealers and collectors like me say to buy the coin not the holder. Buy based on what you grade the coin and what you determine the condition is. BUY and collect coins by eye appeal, not what a TPG suggests. It is amazing there is 11 GRADES of MS. Look at that spot or spots. Look at those marks. I have 5 or more GRADING guides. Not 5 or more CONDITION guides. CONDITION can be liberally termed GRADE but much more including WEAR, SCRATCHES, GOUGES, RIM NICKS, and a host of other DAMAGE. OH, and my opinion is SEGS has the best holder in the industry and the best variety and error authentication.

 

No, the first tier TPGs do not only grade a coin based on marks

 

Hypothetical question. What would a TPG GRADE an MS-65 Morgan dollar with a medium rim nick CONDITION? UNC 65 DETAILS RIM NICK? or Body BAG or AU58? Who is going to be the first to submit a rim nick Morgan MS-65 to a TPG? And if you already have one GRADED with that CONDITION, please post it here. Every coin from 1 to 69 should be details GRADED as to why it got that GRADE based on its CONDITION.