Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."

No way to even guess without seeing it.

PCGS and NGC do not assign numbers to details graded coins. The two eBay approved ones that do do not use the full MS numbers on details graded coins, they are all MS 60 Details XYZ for the issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately something we all fall heir to...

 

ddddd, posted: "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)."

A TRUE AU-58 coin is just as nice as an MS-64 or 65! Much better than ANY low MS coin. That's one problem, apparently some don't know what an AU-58 should look like.

Jaelus, posted: "Case in point. Stuck on wear and standards being infallible (means incapable of being wrong since you seem confused). [Actually there are a few here who may not understand English! Two of them think some posters here think anyone believes "infallible" applies to grading.] Wear is not special! Get that through your head and it will open your eyes to the correctness of market grading.

I agree, "Friction Wear" is not special. It is commonly found on coins graded as MS by TPGS's. That's because if you see it on a coin the coin is not Mint State. Most professional numismatists see it, wink, and ignore it.

"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."

It appears we are back to the meaning of words in the English language. I think this is less confusing and makes more sense: "CUSTOMS are replaced by newer better versions that depreciate the old set of practices in many industries."


baseball21, posted: "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...
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?"

Unfortunately, not one thing you gave as an example of a "standard" is! Lot's of things evolve, especially language, beliefs, methods of doing something with new inventions, and laws governing folks.

baseball21, continued: 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 [NOTHING MENTIONED WAS A STANDARD OF ANYTHING!] was a change from previous standards.

The grading standards [Now you are on track ]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 [until someone thought it up and AFAIK it has remained the same since. Now that is a true "standard"] and it goes on and on and on and on. Please don't.

Oh well: "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. [the previous has nothing to do with the thread but it is something we all can finally agree on!] Aside from that every standard [Custom, usage, method, belief, etc. BUT NOT A TRUE STANDARD] has either changed or was a change from the previous one.

I think you can make a case that there was a change in the standard way of timekeeping when they changed the calendar long ago and added minutes.

TypeCoin971793, posted:

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

Best answer now someone please put this thread to rest.

Not really, I hope everyone is enjoying this discussion and all the knowledgeable folks commenting.

 

Actually it is an interesting discussion.

 

You're getting too caught up in semantics. Standards change all the time does not literally mean the old standard is changing. As I said, it is deprecated.

In other words, Standard A is in effect until Standard B replaces it. Standard A has not actually changed, but it is now obsolete. Both standards in this example pertain to the same thing. So while the old Standard A has not literally changed, the governing set of standards in effect has changed. Again, it happens all the time.

 

Please tell me how things such as a foot being a measurement which I clearly mentioned before, wouldn't qualify as a changed standard even under the most conservative blinders on definition of a standard......

Or is this where we hear measurements and measurement units have never changed?..........

 

Jaelus, posted: "You're getting too caught up in semantics.

Yes, that's true, in order to communicate humans use a language (no longer the old language of whistles and grunts) now mostly words that have meanings. Mint State signifies a coin with NO TRACE OF WEAR according to long held custom/standards in books and the TPGS publications. Many wished to change the word "Uncirculated" to fit their greedy or ignorant purposes. As I posted, it is a personal thing. As Doug posted, for many folks it is a "company" thing.

While I really do care, I cannot change anything. That's why I don't give a rat's tail about what is taking place AS LONG AS SOMEONE can look me in the face and say the coin is not really MS due to the friction wear (old "standard") but it is market acceptable and should be valued as if it were.

"Standards change all the time does not literally mean the old standard is changing. As I said, it is deprecated."

Yes, I see and my dollar bill has "depreciated" to 73 cents.

Grade the coin for its actual condition without any "depreciation" and let the market price it for what it's worth in that condition. Then the debate about grading will be mostly solved as the words or numbers will mean something we can believe.

 

baseball21, post: 3298123, member: 76863"]Please tell me how things such as a foot being a measurement which I clearly mentioned before, wouldn't qualify as a changed standard even under the most conservative blinders on definition of a standard...Or is this where we hear measurements and measurement units have never changed?......…

I apologize, I'm getting a headache and can make no sense of this post in order to reply. Are you saying a foot is not 12 inches due to some change?

Bye, leaving for the FUN SHOW. PS, you all win.

 

Deprecated - means usable but regarded as obsolete.

 

Is there something confusing about what words mean? Is a measurement not a standard? Was a foot always the standard of measurement?

 

So you would define condition as a descriptor (using words), and the grade as a number. I can get on board with that.

 

Jaelus, posted: "Deprecated - means usable but regarded as obsolete."

LOL, not in any dictionary I just checked but I guess in the world some folks live in where AU coins are considered to be the same as MS (having no trace of wear) ANYTHING GOES!

So, Good Morning!

baseball21 asked: "Is there something confusing about what words mean? Is a measurement not a standard? Was a foot always the standard of measurement.

You guys are making me choke up with laughter. I wish there were an emoji for that! I was not alive but as I wrote above, as soon as someone came up with the idea of a "foot" being 12 inches, I think it was "standardized" and has stayed the same.

Since someone discovered the world was not flat, it has been described as some form of roundish. I guess we can say the idea of a flat earth "DEPRECIATED."

Please KEEP POSTING. Thanks to the OP and other participants, this discussion is going to make a terrific grading column. It'll be like 15 minutes of fame and bring more folks to CT.

 

Did you actually look? It's in Webster's. Look at definition 4.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprecate

 

Finally your post is about distinguishing between CONDITION and GRADE. CONDITION as a descriptor and GRADE as the number indicating wear. MS-70 is the only UNCIRCULATED GRADE without a condition or descriptor. Anything from 1 to 69 should be a DETAILS GRADE or DESCRIPTOR GRADE. With 11 different GRADES of an uncirculated coin and one only being a true perfect UNCIRCULATED at MS-70, all others should be DETAIL GRADED. I often wonder why the top tier TPGservices don't admit they are wrong and start GRADING with numbers AND descriptors like SEGS and ICG. It's nice to see a coin in a holder by SEGS or ICG graded AU-58 cleaned rather than top TPG's AU details cleaned. Hmmm, maybe the BIG TPG's don't know the difference between an AU-50, AU-53, AU-55 or AU58. But they sure know the difference between MS 60, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67, 68, 69. I can see a TPG making a GRADING mistake but I question a coin (1888-O VAM 4 Hot lips going from AU-58, broken out a number of times and conserved going to MS- 61 or 62) being conserved and resubmitted numerous times till it gets an MS straight GRADE. All for profit I'm sure. And how much did the GRADING service make each time? It's why I keep saying buy the coin, not the holder and buy the coin by how it appeals to your eye. TPG GRADING is just subjective, suggestive GRADE. Buy the book before you buy the coin. Buy a GRADING guide book and educate yourself.

 

Lack of critical thinking and/or facts gets in the way of some others posts, but I guess next we will hear about how the dictionary was better a 100 years ago

 

The cool thing about this thread is that it proves the point that coin grading as currently practiced doesn't make sense to people, but that some still think it is sacrosanct.

 

Yes, all of the above.

If the TPGs publish their standards it would open them up to liability whenever they grade a coin that does not adhere to those standards. By keeping their standards vague or remaining silent on them, they not only afford themselves a degree of protection, but allow themselves to maintain flexibility in how they grade. This way, NGC can respond to a sudden change in grading style from PCGS, and vice versa, without much fanfare.

You really need a neutral third party to develop and maintain the standards, but it has to be an organization well respected by the TPGs in order to get their buy in. Then again, if both NGC and PCGS adhered to the same standards, what would be the discriminator for each grading service? It would just come down to whichever was more competent.