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

I tend to agree with that, MD....I believe the problem has been that you can have a coin that was absolutely uncirculated and grades Mint State but has dozens of dings and other bag marks....but a coin that circulated for 30 seconds and has the SLIGHTEST rub on the HIGHEST point gets marked down to AU.

No not perfect -- but changing it will definitely bring on new problems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess the feeling is that if we were designing a brand-new grading system TODAY....we'd have a discussion if the tiniest amount of wear on the highest point of a coin should drop you from MS to AU, all other things equal.

The vote to stick with what we have might be different if we went back in time and were coming up with a new system.

 

deleted

 

The problem is not on this hard line, it is a value line that changes.
Any coin that has a rub on the high points is clearly not MS (Mint State). It is AU (About uncirculated). The hard line has disappeared or been blurred to try and clarify a value. Not a condition.

 

Are you saying this "value line" is the willingness of the market (collectors) to pay more (or relatively more) for nice-looking AU-58's than low-60's in MS ?

 

I am saying that the TPG's, some of them, have blurred this line not the experienced collector. The collector is the one paying up for it, and most unknowingly.

 

A MS coin could be common in a MS state but an AU coin of the same same date and mintmark may be harder to find, thereby raising its price above that if the MS coin. It's not the grade that sets the price, it's supply and demand.

 

OK...but are you then saying you want some AU-58's to be graded MS and some low-60's MS to be dropped into the AU bucket ?

It looks like you want to blur the line between AU and MS based on overall appeal, which is what drives the price investors pay.

 

Right, and I get that the top-end of AU could at times blur into the low-end of MS.

But if there were HARDLY ANY coins of the EF or VF type....the lack of supply there wouldn't push the prices up that much, certainly not into AU or MS territory.

I believe the "kink" or pricing anomaly or whatever we call it at the AU-MS Border is unique there because (1) Mint State is what we all would prefer, if cost were no object and (2) AU coins can at times have overall good eye appeal while some (low-60's) MS clearly do not.

In fact, many AU-58's can look as good as MS64's and 65's aside from the rub/wear.

 

No, If a coin has wear it is AU period.

 

Despite a lot of back and forth and acknowledging it’s far from perfect, the current system still serves the collector pretty well, IMHO. Wanna have a real mess? Bring in even more subjectivity.

 

I stand with ya on that statement.

 

Define the term “wear”

 

I take it to mean CIRCULATION wear, even if it circulates for only 15 seconds.

Conversely, you can get dinged in a bag for hours or weeks or months and still remain Mint State.

 

Takes longer than that to do anything to it, but there is a big difference between the coins that have just a touch of friction on the high points, and coins that have legitimate you can easily see it wear. The high point friction ones which would otherwise be 63ish without the hard line are the ones the many people want bumped and to some extent they have started to get the bump as they should

 

Some collectors, mostly inexperienced ones, have long advocated changes to the grading system numbers. The most frequently seen proposal is for a 100 point system. This would mainly be a revenue enhancer for the grading companies with no improvement in precision or quality.

 

This is where the distinction between "technical grading" such as what Insider preaches becomes confused with "market grading" such as the TPGs practice.

Technically, a coin with wear is AU.

Value wise, however, there are many, many cases where I would absolutely pay more for an attractive AU-58 than an ugly MS-60, 61, or maybe even 62.

Market grading says - if you'll pay a 62 price for it, then it must be a 62. Technical grading says - call a peacock a peacock, and I'll pay you what it's worth.

 

Don’t see any need for changing MS grading. We’ve got 60-70 with some plus grades. Toss in PL, DMPL and star, and there’s more than needed. TPGs already reserve MS60 for really trashed uncirculated coins.

One thing that’s bothered me about circulated grades is that they are based pretty much exclusively on wear regardless of dings and scratches. Appears to be tacit assumption that the more wear on a coin, the more dings and scratches it will have. But you don’t have to look at many circulated coins to see that ain’t always so. Seems like there should be a two-part grade … one indicates wear … the other indicates dings and scratches. Something like AU50a, AU50b and AU50c. The “c” class would have very few dings and scratches; “a” class would have a lot. Yeah, it would add even more grades … that’s the downside.

Regardless of grade, there's nothing like looking at a photo ... or even better ... the real coin.

Cal

 

Well, they already do Plus and Star grades for circulated coins....

Honestly though, I've long been in favor of having a breakdown of the grade. UNC coins would have a 1-5 rating for Strike, Luster, Eye Appeal, and Contact Marks. Circulated coins would have a 1-5 rating for Strike, Eye Appeal, Contact Marks, in addition to the wear grade (F, VF, EF, etc).

 

I voted "no" which is the idealist in me speaking. I agree with Jason that we should maintain a sharp distinction between the circulated and uncirculated grades. Carry on the fight against the mendacious mandarins of mercantilism!

The practical/realist side says this ship has sailed. Market grading simply has too much wealth/power/influence behind it. So collectors must simply gird their loins and buy the coins they like while developing as much skill and knowledge as possible so that they know what they are doing.

Still, it galls to pay a MS price for an AU coin or an AU price for a XF coin - like we are forced to do with key and semi-key dates.

And to @calcol 's point, I have never bought a coin sight-unseen and never will. The original TPG promise of creating a "sight-unseen" market never materialized (I don't think) because, IMHO, market grading killed it.