PR70 or PR69 ?

All I ask is what is the definition of 'perfect'? A proof coin at 10 ft away looks perfect. A little closer it may still look perfect. Up close, under 5x, it still looks 'perfect' as much as is possible. *No damage, scuffs or wear*. It stops there. It is not taken down to a closer or microscopic level. So there is a line drawn.

70 is as good as it gets, at that magnification which is all that is required. There is no claim that the coin is perfect down to a microscopic level.

BTW, this has been a great discussion. It has really made me think about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What is flawless? That is not perfect?

Anyway: From this URL: http://www.coingrading.com/crackout1.html

To illustrate, let's imagine a coin which three graders out of ten would consider MS-65. The other seven would grade it MS-64. Based on probability statistics there is approximately a one in five chance that a random selection of 3 graders from this mix will result in at least 2 of the 3 graders grading the coin MS-65 thus insuring an MS-65 rating by PCGS or NGC. If the coin is worth $50 in MS-64 and $150 in MS-65, most dealers would just sell it in the MS-64 holder - possibly as a PQ But, if the coin is worth $300 in MS-64 and $1,000 in MS-65, chances are the dealer will resubmit it until the grading service finally grades it MS-65.

 

Here is an interesting quote from the PSCG site:

Soon terms such as "very fine" and "extra fine" began to emerge, as collectors sought to further define the condition of their coins -- and increase their value. In 1948, Dr. William Sheldon, a renowned numismatist, developed the Sheldon Scale, assigning grades from "one" through "70" to coins on the theory that a "70" would be worth seventy times as much as a "one".

seems we have 70 times between 69 and 70....

 

I didn't create that quote, somebody else did based on live experience, so it is a reality and not a made up scenario. He's not saying this might happen. He is say it does happen.

This is getting to be serious semantics. I see no difference in their definition and the word "perfect". If you want to say perfect with a 5x glass, that's fine. No defects of any kind is perfect. Now, I doubt that happens, putting that aside, you then has the dubious question as to what is a proper strike. Good luck with that.

There is no practical difference between the world flawless and and as fully intended strikes and the word perfect. And I've seen the word "perfect" used in PSCG literature, and repeatedly over again in the rags and books you read

http://en.mimi.hu/numismatic/ms-70.html


here

http://www.lsmint.com/AboutCoins.html

and here

http://www.americanplatinumexchange.com/glossary.htm


and here

http://www.acoin.com/grading.htm

and here

http://www.apmex.com/Category/751/PERFECT_70_Coins.aspx

and here

http://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/grading-coins.html


ad nusium

Now I didn't say you have to go to the microscopic level to define perfect, I'm saying they can't decide on perfect within there own definitions of a 5x loop. They really can't and we've seen repeated examples of this here and at trade show and across coin collecting. PCGS is clear that a 70 can't be weak strike. Look at a reverse Morgan. How many facets of that coin might be clear or not even on a strong strike. A Lincoln cent is just as bad as is the Jefferson Nickel, the Walking Liberty design, Franklin Halves. Does it have to be a full bell line to be a 70? See its not that simple to define a "flawless" strike. But in the end I don't really care about any of this.


What I do care about is the the process is not validateble. I don't care how much crying and whining there is defending the top tier slabbers When you can prove to me that if we resubmit 100 MS 70 or PF70 coins and statistically get them all regraded as 70's then the process is a valid process with approvable quality control.

And it wouldn't. It would fail any serious validation process. And if I dispensed diabetes drugs with that kind of consistency I'd be called a quack and prosecuted under the law.

And putting down $5000 for a MS70 Ike worth $20 turns the whole principle of the Sheldon Scale, as well as it being outright foolish because of the lack of validity of the grading process.

** Definition of Validation of a process is best set forth in this book and among others :

http://books.google.com/books?id=3P...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPP1,M1

 

Oh - and here is the other issue. Anyone with any experience in such processes such as say making tires or glass or coins, such as grading a coin should be compared to when done in mass, would laugh at this whole notion because processes can only be validated for degree of precision which entails error. If you grade something a 65, the process will produce acceptable outcomes of 64 and 66 and still be valid.

There is no such error in a 70 graded coin, at least not according to those markets or the proponents of the TPGers. I'd be happy if they had a process that could validate to the standard deviation of 1.5 in the 90th percetile. I doubt it make even the 30th percentile. I know that if you crack those coins out the majority will return 69.

Ruben

 

This analogy doesn't work. For one thing, drug stores make errors all the time and nothing happens. And then you are comparing an accuracy which is not known. There is no percentage to base your opinion or criticism on.

You expect TPGs to achieve 100% accuracy? What fields can the same be expected of? This is unrealistic and again, it's up to you and your budget what you feel is reasonable to pay for a 70 grade, regardless of the process.
Or, ignore them altogether if you feel professionals and former dealers, many with 30+ years of experience and nothing to gain, who look at hundreds of coins every day, are unable to properly grade top tier coins better than your or I. This is why I tend to lean in their favor and trust them. Not to mention it's not just left up to one person.

 

BTW - that is Jim Halpern's scenario, not mine

 

I'm not talking about drug store, I'm talking about manufacturing drugs, but for what its worth, just to say it, drug stores do not make mistakes all the time, although they do make mistakes. Their accuracy on average is over 99.98 % or about two erros a week in a store that might fill 200 RXs a day.

No, my point is that they don't have a validated process and they're accuracy is very very poor.

A valid process doesn't guarantee you an error free output. It guarantees that within predefined acceptable standards that if done correctly, that the process achieves statistically provable results within those defined standards.
This kind of work is done prior production.

And then you Quality Control, which is the live examination of the process to assure that it being done within the validated potential of the process.

I already discussed the concept of precision and error, so I won't do it again.

ALL businesses use this model. It is actually an engineering concept that has flowed though to research and development to manufacturing, to marketing

Of course, but we're not even discussing that. We're now discussing an estimate of the value of the grade itself. I'll tell you it has NO real value over a 69 and please prove otherwise with your statistical analysis.

Ask how many of these people believe in grade 70 coins? Would it shock you to find out that a great many of them have zero faith in a 70 grade?

Ruben

 

It has to end somewhere. The scale ends. 70 is the end. Theoretically, there's no way for the coin to be anymore perfect in any aspect. There is no need for error at an upper level beyond this. You're making this way too scientific.

There is no way to know for sure that most 70s would not come back as 70s again without running the experiment. Anything less is just slanted guesses. But yes, I would guess if you sent in 1,000 formerly graded PF70s, some percentage would come back as 69s. And quite possibly some of those could be re-submitted and get 70s again. It's splitting hairs and really not worth paying enormous premiums over. I think most serious collectors realized this a long time ago. I would not expect the process to be 100% fool proof.

 

So you feel the scale should end at 69 saying there are no damage or wear free coins in existence? It just doesn't seem like that outrageous of a concept to have a PF70 grade. Most modern proofs have a 50% or better chance of receiving it. It's not like only 2% or less are graded worthy. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

 

And ultimately that's what it comes down to... if there isn't a foolproof way to tell the difference between a 69 and 70... it it can't be said with 100% reliability that one coin is 69 and another is 70... than how can it possibly be worth paying more for a 70 instead of a 69? Heck, even if you wanted a coin with a 70 grade slapped on it... buy a 69 and take the chances it may get a 70 if you send it in enough times.

If a difference can not be reliably determined... then in a practical sense, it may as well not exist. And a practically non-existant difference certaintly isn't worth paying a premium for.

In all essence it's just a scam by the TPG's to outright lie to people that a grade can be objectively determined and that their expert graders are the best at doing it... and they'll do it for you, for a price of course.

A grade is just an opinion, and all opinions are purely subjective, by definition.

Like I say in my signature... boycott ALL the TPGs and end this nonsense.

 

I think the last point is too far. There is an objective outcome to grading, or to any process. there are just subjective judgments and variability even without subjective judgment is a natural aspect of everything.

So a 100% is an unfair standard, but I'd be just astonished with a 70% validatable process within 1.5 standard deviations.

That would mean that ruffly 65% of the coins sent to be regraded would still return as a 70 grade.

Your not going to see that.

Ruben

 

And your proof is.....?????????? You may well be right, but I have no idea how you can prove it.

 

The proof is on the burden of the TPG. They have to prove they have a valid process and that is not an allegorical description. They have to run it and prove it. We've seen enough errors here to hold them with a gain of salt.

Ruben

 

And you never will get your proof because nobody in their right mind would crackout and resubmit a coin in a 70 holder.

In my estimation, the only way to solve this would be with a very large wager. The cost associated with acquiring and resubmitting 100 PF70 coins would be over $10K and the bet would have to be at least double that to be worthwhile. Does anyone want to wager $25K just to prove a point? Maybe we can get the guy who bought the 1977-S IKE to take the bet. Ruben will surely take the bet after all of the talking he has done on the subject.

Would be a really great prop bet. I will be at the poker table, let me know how it turns out.

 

Everything you have seen here is proof of nothing except that they are not perfect. You have a number of problems I will agree, but you have no idea what the population is. What I can say is that I have seen many more mistakes by the members than I have by the TPG's.

 

Prove that the TPG of 70 is valid and define your statistical definition. Otherwise you just think that maybe it might be valid, but you have no proof.

The burden of proof is on them, especially in the face of object examples of errors on their part and patterns of mistakes.

Ruben

 

Sorry, but you are the one accusing - you have the burden of proof. Last time I heard, you are innocent until proven guilty. And, bear in mind, that you are not to show that they do not meet your definition of 70, but that they do not meet their own definition of 70.

 

No - this is not a question its an issue of fact. They are making a claim, and they need to justify and sooner or later someone is going to sue them over there claim. And when they do, the lawyers are going to be digging for a validation process.

Show me the data to prove their PF70's are accurate.


Ruben