Would you consider changes to the grading scales? AU 63, etc?

Would you be in favor of adding more options for the AU and MS grading scales? In such a case there could be an AU 63 coin (slight rub but very clean otherwise) and there could be an MS 55 (technically UNC but looks like it lost a knife fight).

If you are in favor, would you want all options open (i.e. AU 50-AU 70 and MS 50-MS 70) or some subset (i.e. AU 50- AU 65 and MS 55-MS 70)?

Should there be further consideration for all other grades? XF 50?
Should the prefix just be eliminated and we would only have a number scale from 1-70 with a notation at the bottom for has wear or has no wear?

What issues might the new scale fix and what new issues might it add?

Note: please use the poll to specifically share your thought on making the AU and MS grades more fluid. Feel free to comment on the other questions as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm in the no camp. I understand that there are AU-58 coins that are nicer than low MS examples and am perfectly happy to pay a premium for those. The market has also demonstrated that collectors can often figure out quality without a need to change standards. The current grading scale might not be perfect, but making it more fluid can have many unforeseen issues.

 

If it was me, id drop the letters all together and just go 1-70. The letters add confusion and there really aren't many AU coins that deserve MS grades anyways. You're essentially just looking at the 58/58+ that deserve higher grades and on the other side some of the 60-62 that deserve lower grades. It's not like a XF coin is going to jump to MS

 

@Pickin and Grinin
@Insider
@GoldFinger1969

 

@Lehigh96
@Morgandude11
@jtlee321

 

Really interesting....let me think about this before I commit.....good questions !!

 

@brg5658
@wxcoin
@Paddy54

...and everyone else...let's get a large enough sample of CT members to see what happens

 

I see no problems with the current grading scale. To me, it would be confusing to add extra grades, that would only confuse. AU 63, for instance, is an almost contradictory designation. Is the coin uncirculated or not? Is it circulated, but has MS detail, but minot wear? Is it uncirculated, but has a flaw that keeps the coin from straight grading MS? To me, it would add an additional degree of ambiguity. I would say that most collectors know there is some judgement in any TPG grade, and especially with high AU coins—the old “Is it wear, or a poor strike?” Keep things as they are, and let collectors interpret grading with whatever interpretation they choose.

 

@Morgandude11 would you like to change your vote? Your reply seems to suggest that it's best to leave it as-is ("no" vote) but you picked the more fluid option ("yes" vote).

I updated the poll to allow changing votes.

 

The only expansion I could possibly foresee or should I say overlap, would be the AU grades. More specifically the AU-58 possibly AU-55. The grade itself would not change, but a secondary surface grade could be added. Because you can have a really nice looking AU-58 that has the surfaces of say an MS-65 or MS-66, but has a very light wear on the high points. Conversely you can have an AU-58 that is essentially an MS-60 beat to hell coin with just a touch of wear.

For example... AU-58 (65 surfaces) or AU-58 (62 surfaces) or the perfect AU coin AU-58+ (68 surfaces). Something along those lines. To me the MS designations are already self explanatory. An MS-60, is something I would avoid like the plague or really anything from MS-60 - MS-62 for me.

I don't know, I am just throwing this out there without a lot of thought this morning.

 

Two things. A big part of the hobby is made up of old guys like me that grew up grading coins G thru MS. In my mind, I still want to use that old fashioned system when I am evaluating a coin for purchase. And I would never trust a numeric numbering system implemented by a seller that didn't have his coin slabbed.

As far as the numeric system. I own coins that were graded 15-20 years ago that today would grade much higher. I believe with the levity that has been given to the numeric system in recent years, we probably do need to expand the system to encompass current grading standards that do not seem to be as strict as they once were.

 

Building on your idea, another thing I have considered (and mentioned by others on here as well) is doing a four/five portion score.
It would be made up of:
Luster
Strike
Surfaces
Eye Appeal

Each would have a score between 1-70 and then there would be a composite grade. This would still not solve the "wear" question, so there would be a fifth portion that is for wear and would just be a "yes" or "no" option.

So a 58+ coin might now be graded
Luster: 63
Strike: 63
Surfaces:65
Eye Appeal: 65
Wear: Y
..for a net grade of 64 (if all components are 25%...actual percentage splits would also be something to debate)

 

i would lower the strike influence a bit for the 58/58+ as more people will gravitate towards the luster bomb eye apple coin than one with less but a thumb is fully split.

 

Very, very strongly no.

Those of us who call a coin "AU-63" do so extremely sarcastically, with a vein of cynicism. It is not intended as a compliment.

AU is AU. It shows wear. These grades are below 60.

UNC is UNC. It shows no wear. These grades are above 60.

A coin either has wear or it does not.

 

Thanks. Done

 

I got the alert. Just thinking on the topic.
Too start the scale between AU53 and MS64 has gotten so colluded with judgement based on opinions of value. That at this point changing it now seems to be a mute conversation. I really don't think that the TPG's are gonna fall into bed with the idea.

Surely though something should be done about it.

 

For some yes, for some no

 

If it was changed it would make it easier for numerous individuals to cheat the system, so to speak. Any new grading system or changes to the current system would be misunderstood by dealers and collectors alike. Dishonest folks would use that to make money for themselves. I think the current system is fine.

 

I'm in the no camp. Either a coin has signs of circulation or it doesn't. In my opinion, there's no reason a coin that is AU should be in MS, or a MS coin to be in AU if it's MS and has no signs of circulation.
there can be toning, and contact marks and hairlines, sure. when we get to "rub" I think it's a real fine line to where it gets considered signs of circulation vs. true rub.

But the reason we have these type of issues with this line being blurred was the attempts of TPGs to "market grade" coins instead of sticking to the scale and disqualifying slightly worn coins from getting MS when, again, in my opinion, they should have excluded them.

it's already subjective enough without making it even more subjective in both directions. In fact, Market grading already happens and exists, but it just sends AU coins into low-mid MS, but not Ugly banged up MS coins into AU for some reason.... oh yeah "the market"....

They should have stuck to the basic rules, this is why there's so many people that don't trust TPGs opinions, because of market grading, which is clearly overgrading coins that should have been excluded from MS because it's too nice still or in a lincoln cents case "just too "red" for it to be AU even though it's got signs of circulation wear, but because it's still so red they give an AU-58 coin a MS63 or so.

If they did this idea on top of what they already do, it makes TPGs even less relevant besides verifying a coin is genuine, they already done more than enough damage to their credibility with market grading. Anyways rant finished.

 

The more options you allow the more disparity there will be. We will end up arguing about which TPG is more accurate. This grading game has turned out to be more of a contest between collectors. A game founded in macho. A game of status symbols. I am sticking with eye appeal as my one and only grade.