What style of grading for technical AU58 coins would you prefer from the TPGs?

I've read your explanations about grading history before, and I'm familiar with the origins of the Sheldon scale and its purpose.

I believe that you think you did that.

As I went over in a previous post, the less percentage of wear a coin has, the less a grade based on wear describes the condition of preservation, until you get to the point where at AU58, the grade gives virtually no information on the condition of preservation.

If you can refute my explanation of this concept in my earlier post, I'd love to read it, but I think my adding a touch of cabinet rub to an MS70 vs to an MS60 illustrates the point irrefutably.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Eventually, we will probably have AU-63, etc grades but only if the collectors and dealers push the TPGS..

 

Jaelus, posted: "I've read your explanations about grading history before, and I'm familiar with the origins of the Sheldon scale and its purpose."

I believe that you think you did that.

As I went over in a previous post, the less percentage of wear a coin has, the less a grade based on wear describes the condition of preservation, until you get to the point where at AU58, the grade gives virtually no information on the condition of preservation.

If you can refute my explanation of this concept in my earlier post, I'd love to read it, but I think my adding a touch of cabinet rub to an MS70 vs to an MS60 illustrates the point irrefutably.

Your "point" only illustrates that you were never properly instructed; yet I'll bet if we were face to face we would agree on most of what you have written. Many of your comments in this discussion are EXCELENT describing your opinion.

Unfortunately, this post is … [self edit]. It proves to me that the state of numismatic education in this country is very poor.

A perfect (no longer the case for many modern 70s) coin that I slide across the floor so that it shows a slight amount of friction on its high points IS NO LONGER PERFECT or in the Mint State condition it was originally. Your belief or opinion or that of a TPGS does not change that fact.

Now, you can either accept that or not. Frankly, I don't care, but I will continue to refute any uninformed nonsense you post and praise any excellent comments when I get around to reading your comments at the beginning as I promised.

As for this nonsense: "I believe that you think you did that."

I've only worked with one "rookie" and it was not you. So I know I/we did it for fifteen years and I could teach you very quickly how simple and precise it was.

PS The Sheldon Scale HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REASON COINS WERE DESCRIBED (graded) long before he was born!!!!!! That's a beginning YN Coin Grading subject.

 

It's kind of offensive that you assume that because I disagree with you on how something is done that it must be because I am uninformed.

I am at a loss as to how to get through to you and others who are like minded that I am talking about a completely different method of evaluation that is not wear-centric. You and others seem unable to contemplate my scale from a non wear-centric point of view, and as such your criticisms are all based on wear. But in this system the wear is unimportant so you are quite spectacularly missing the point.

You're telling me that a coin with a touch of rub isn't mint state. I KNOW that. What I'm telling you is that it is unimportant! Qualitatively a virtually uncirculated coin that otherwise has the appearance of a 64 IS BETTER THAN a dog of a 60 that is uncirculated in absolutely every way that matters. Common sense dictates that the better quality coin have a higher grade. Once you need to explain to someone why the nicer of the two coins has the lower grade, you should realize the system is a failure as the grades do not properly establish a quality hierarchy.

Preferring an ugly dog of a 60 over a beautiful virtually uncirculated coin just because "wear" is nothing short of snobbery. The truth is that wear is just like any other type of surface damage. It doesn't do anything magical to the coin. The part of the grade to do with surface issues should only take into account their location and severity. It should not treat any one type of issue as being more significant than another.

Please wrap your head around the concept that you can grade coins in a totally different way without putting any special significance as to whether surface issues have occured from wear friction or from another means. In my system I only care if damage occured post strike. Any post strike surface issues lower the grade commensurate with their severity and location. Period. You don't need to single out wear. It's not special. It just happens to be the most significant contributor to surface damage in coins as they become more circulated. On virtually uncirculated coins, wear is so insignificant as to almost not merit consideration.

I know that's not how you think it should be done because you've been drinking the wear kool aid for so long. My difference in opinion is not because I am uninformed, but because I can see that the existing system doesn't work and I'm not afraid to propose something without those limitations, even if it is a radical departure.

 

Wow, that is a great post and encapsulates this thread nicely.

 

This more than anything else you've said demonstrates that you're not getting my concept.

I've heard so often here that wear is wear. The concept being that it doesn't make sense to treat wear differently based on the source. I agree with that completely.

My concept is a natural extension of this. A surface impairment is a surface impairment. Meaning you grade based on the location and severity of an impairment (wear is just an impairment) and it doesn't matter what the source of the impairment is. It only matters that it happened post strike.

That the MS70 is not mint state in my example after the light rub is not the point. The point is that the severity of the rub is exceptionally minor and the impairment should be judged solely on its location and severity.

Please pay close attention to the truth in these next few sentences. The objective reality is that the coin has an extremely tiny impairment. That it is from wear does not inherently carry any special significance. It is only your belief that wear is special that makes you feel it should drop a mind-blowing 12 steps, when a different equally tiny impairment in the same location would only be a two point deduction. The key here is that your placement of special significance on wear is an arbitrary construct that works against precisely defining the state of the coin in an objective manner.

 

It looks like the solution here may be multi factor grading. The coin would get different scores for wear, surface, strike, etc, etc; and combining these would give some final score. Basically the "AU67" would get better score than "MS60".

Just my two cents...

 

Jaelus, posted: "It's kind of offensive that you assume that because I disagree with you on how something is done that it must be because I am uninformed."

Quick reply. Disagreements are great. That's one way we learn. I love to debate. That's how I learn and that's one way my opinion is changed.

For me, PARTS of our discussion are like talking to a "flat earther." I was in the first rocket and saw the curvature of the earth. You were not. Therefore, I am assuming nothing as you have made your position very clear. For you and others the earth is flat (and MS is a floating, changing choice affected by dozens of variables). As I posted before, describing the condition of a coin is extremely easy for anyone with good eyesight and the correct way to examine the coin. The act of assigning a grade to that description has become difficult because of the "flat earthers" and the ex-coin dealers in charge of things.

Interesting thought: The TPGS came about to rein in dealers back in the "Wild West" days. Now, the dealers are in charge and I must grade AU's MS .

PS Again thanks for your long and thoughtful posts. I assure you I will read them and answer your points. This is fun for me and please let my "barbs" just amuse you as I have full respect for you and those who post as you do.

 

This is absolutely not what I've been saying. In fact, I think I made the point quite clearly that I take a hard line approach on MS coins that is completely in line with your view. I don't mind disagreements, but to disagree you first have to have an understanding of my position.

Here are 8 quotes from my earlier posts in this thread that clearly show that I don't believe that circulated coins should be graded as mint state. I distinctly have the impression that you don't understand what I'm talking about at all here. You have this impression that you know what I'm talking about, but I'm fairly certain my previous assessment was correct. You're reading everything with a wear-centric grading bias that you're unable to let go of enough to actually appreciate the concept I'm putting forth.

 

The earth was believed to be flat by long standing how it was always done knowledge long before it was known to be round.

 

?

 

I believe he's saying that Insider is actually like the flat earther because he knows what he knows based on the long standing knowledge of how things are accepted to be done and is dismissive of new ideas (round earth) that are a radical departure from his understanding.

I'm fairly certain something along the lines of what I'm proposing is an inevitability for market grading, so that would also make it more like the round earth.

 

It's already a done deal that more whole coin grading is the future as opposed to just micro-grading from a single aspect. Tip of the hat to you for having the patience to continue to explain something for years often times to the same people. Efforts will certainly be made to slow it for whatever reason but the market has spoken

 

Not the same thing. Better might be the "earth centric" believers who rejected the guys who studied the stars.

 

I was making a statement. Anyone that decided to call people flat earners or imply they were for not agreeing with their way is on them and moving the goal posts is just well……

 

baseball21, posted: "I was making a statement. Anyone that decided to call people flat earners or imply they were for not agreeing with their way is on them and moving the goal posts is just well……"

I was also just making a statement.



There are two basic choices when examining a coin, both are "called" grading. You can simply describe what you see - a very simple act that does not change (NO SUBJECTIVITY = Precision). Or you can attempt to evaluate it. Its market value is paramount in this type of examination and all sorts of subjectivity is introduced causing a wide range of opinion:

You like its color; you don't like its color.
I looks different under magnification rather than the naked eye.
Does it have stacking wear, cabinet friction, circulation wear, etc.
Should it be net graded to reflect its value?
Should I be conservative or liberal with the exam?

When I taught my first coin grading seminar, I had to come up with a definition of grading. This is it:

Grading is a subjective observation made to asses the condition of preservation and relative ranking of similar objects.

Do you see what's missing? Until you boil down the act of grading into its simplest definition and understand it, we can forever. Once a student understands this, we can discuss how it has evolved into what we must do today in order to be a competent coin grader. I believe many of you can grade with the best of them However, I do not believe any of you have ever studied most of the grading proposals from before the turn of the Century to the 60's (so you could formulate a simple, precise way to rank and identify coins) or can discuss in detail how grading evolved from the first two TPGS to now.

So, for me this entire discussion comes down to this:

We each have our personal experience, methods, tools/books to form our personal opinion of a coins "grade." Nevertheless, you had better know how the TPGS "grade" at this moment in time and for each type/age of coin as it has changed before and will change in the future. That is the nature of "market" grading.

So, you can join the ranks of connoisseur collectors who don't want one little fiber disturbed, one scuff, one discoloration , etc. on their item or ignore "Cabinet Friction" on your Mint State coins because TRUE MINT STATE COINS ARE VERY RARE in many vintage coin series.

 

A great post.

As an antiquarian, a large part of my library is books related to numismatics, dating back to the 17th century, so I have some insights into changing trends and what is or is not acceptable on subjects like conservation. What connoisseurs like is itself somewhat subjective, however, the reason connoisseurs prefer uncirculated coins is not because the coin is uncirculated, but because there is a strong correlation between great eye appeal and uncirculated surfaces. You seem to imply that those connoisseurs would prefer an ugly toned and extremely baggy MS60 over a beautiful AU58 and it's just not the case.

In my own collections and registry sets, I prefer the best possible examples I can get. While that does (for me) mean gem+ grades for most issues (where they are available), I have sometimes selected a technically lower grade coin for my set over what are better examples on paper because the lower grade coin had superior eye appeal due to toning, luster, or prooflike surfaces.

 

A coin with wear should cap at AU-58 in my opinion. Cabinet rub should be able to grade mint state in my opinion .

 

I've read all of your posts, and it appears you would like coins to be graded to your standard which I believe is also used if you look long enough. Please view posted example that has believed bag marks, rub, as in wear, but is virtually graded "Gem".

I believe you can use any grading system you desire, or generate, but it may limit future sales. I believe you're reasonable, as may others.

JMHO

 

Yes I would not grade that as MS64. It's a circulated coin so it should not be in an MS slab. I would grade it as AU64 or Q64 AU depending on which notation style you prefer. The problem is not that the coin is in a 64 slab, it is that we have coupled the "MS" prefix to 60-67, ignoring the absolute fact that coins with a touch of rub still increase in quality well past 58.