JA didn’t sticker it, so now I must sell it …

This whole thread is why lowball collecting exists.

Z

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's not a defensible statement. Collectible playing cards like Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, etc. are absolutely analogous to coins as they have wear from play. So is also the case with comic books and video games, both of which accumulate wear. Also look at non-slabbed collectibles intended for use like books and furniture, these are also graded on a quality scale.

 

Grading as two scales is also problematic. What about proofs that are circulated?

The scale is 1-60 for regular minted coins for circulation

60-70 is for coins that are not circulated or Proofs. Admitedly it is a bit arbitrary, and can lead to confusing for newbies. One could argue that Proofs should just be considered a different coin altogether, and graded 1-60 as well, but that doesn't solve the issue for coins that are business strikes that never were circulated.

 

OK

 

no it is not.

 

I posit that the reason collectors want technical grading is because they grew up being told that technical grading is the way you grade coins, and that identifying the presence of even the most minute traces of wear is paramount.

If you started looking at coins without the bias of technical grading you could with some eye training arrange coins in increasing quality and value, and in doing so, you would discover that wear (while important) would not be the primary factor in determining a coin's position on this scale. You would also observe that you would have a less complicated linear scale denoting quality.

Every time I bring this topic up, I see a lot of the "this is the way its done" defense. Progress is made by taking a step back from the way things are done and revisiting the possibility of a way it can be done better.

Realize that TPGs "grossly overgrading" their coins is subjective. You're judging market graded coins as if they were technical graded. I would say a lot of coins that technical graders would consider to be overgraded are still undergraded.

 

You keep interjecting that what you think, want and desire is what everyone else thinks, wants and desires, or otherwise they are crazy. I wish you would stop doing that and to stick with the facts.

 

You mean ignoring facts like how play wear on cards is directly analogous to circulation wear on coins?

You mean ignoring facts like how coins are the only collectible market that has an unintuitive non-linear quality scale?

You mean ignoring facts like how TPG grading already largely ignores a hard and fast demarcation between circulated and uncirculated coins, and that this is neither overgrading nor a mistake; they are doing this intentionally?

You're right. There are a lot of facts being ignored in this thread.

 

I don't even know what this means, but the core premise is wrong. What does "the bias of technical grading" mean? And nobody uses technical grading. I wish they did, because it would be easier. You would NOT be able to get a concensus of grades on coins without agreed criteria and such criteria without real knowledge of the properties on the minting process and how coins wear would never be accepted by knowledgable collectors who KNOW how coins are minted and what flaws can occur for any series, how they wear. Your suggest would render the Bust Nuts at the John Reich Society and idiots because they drive deeply into die states and grade accordingly. Your proposal depends on two flawed hipothesis... one is that we can get agreement without strong criteria and experience, and that amatures with minimal training can determine coin quality. This is like when we were kids and made fun at Rothko paintings. We thought we were the experts on art.

There is a lot that goes into judging cultural artifacts and art objects in general. And you hypothesis wouldn't stand a chance of proving axiomatic in any art field, whether one is would be determining the value of an Old Dutch Master, or Ming Porcelain vase. All these objects need to be studied and understood in the context of the culture and technology that they were created in and the purpose of their design and history. And this includes coins, that are made to be circulated in commerce and whose aesthetic quality is a happenstance of their function.

 

That is not a fact.

 

Yes you've said that twice now, and it's very easy to say something isn't true, isn't it?

Do please explain how shuffling, sorting, handling, playing, and carrying around of cards isn't analogous to the counting, sorting, handling, paying, and carrying around of money...

 

Regardless of your wrong opinion, you can do so without infering that others are idiots for not agreeing with your consensus (of a single individual).

 

Correct, and I was correct in both cases.

 

No - I don't want to open that up as an avenue for further argument which is not directly related to the topic. It is suffice to KNOW that coins and Magic Playing cards are created for two different purposes altogether, and only one of them is created for the sole purpose of circulating in public until they are so worn out that they are pulled from circulation.

 

I've been a member of the JRCS for a long time, and as many here know, I am a die state collector for bust quarters.

The problem with technical grading is that it tells advanced collectors nothing they shouldnt already know, while also giving amateur collectors information that is potentially extremely misleading without them having the expertise to interpret it. As such, it really doesn't offer anyone anything of value in terms of using it as the basis for slab grades, which is a big part of why the TPGs don't do it.

Also you seem to be saying that a quality-based scale wouldn't work because experts would be needed to grade the coins. You don't say? If only there were companies that had grading expertise that you could pay money to to do something like encapsulate and render a professional opinion on a coin...

Also, this same subjectivity you speak of exists with technical grading when you are pricing a coin with a grade that is divorced from its value, such as an "AU64", and the like, and yet people seem to be able to price these coins just fine. I wonder how they are able to do that...

 

I have no use for CAC, or for that matter, TPG's. The coin is my decision, to seal it is my decision, To grade it is solely my choice. My heirs can fight with the bidiots, I won't be here...

 

I never said any such thing.

I SAID

Which is what we currently do. You suggest we can dispense of that expertise. That is fundementally wrong.

 

Just coming back to collecting and being blown away by the whole grading system. I am sounding like and old guy, which I am, in my day there were the Fair to Unc. grades, simple. Now, really, 63, 63+ vs 64. Based on an opinion that can be influenced by a person having a good day or a bad day. Do you want a faceless person telling you the MS 64 is worth 5,000 more than a MS 63 when it is really AU58.

 

I agree: here’s a good example up for auction at GC. If I was offered this coin raw I would of been in the MS camp but I know my limitations and a professional grader isn’t one of them. I only buy raw from a few trusted dealers.

 

she is a beauty