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

I would not argue the fact that the coin has an increased VALUE. As far as the word quality. Quality is subjective to the ever changing market.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A fair point, but I'm not sure in this example you can decouple quality and value.

For example take two of the exact same coin, one MS70 and one MS60. Give each a touch of rub and grade them both AU58. One is going to be a lot more valuable than another, but it's also because of the increase in quality - and that difference in quality between those coins and the spread inbetween them is worlds greater than what can be described in one grade. Which is exactly why market grading exists.

 

Just simplify it even more. Ditch the letters entirely and have the 1-70 actually be a continuous scale that grades based on everything with no hard line for wear.

 

WHOA

 

Shh. People aren't ready for this concept. That's why I haven't brought it up. The letter prefixes have literally never had any value.

 

Agreed. If anything the letters just confuse people.

 

I wouldn't call that quality, a light wisp of contact is all that separates MS from AU.
The slightest amount of contact can easily disappear to the common eye when it is toned over. I also have a problem using up all the high grades 68 and above these coins hold value and aren't called top pops for nothing. Flooding these grades with your common every day gem, would be an absolute disrespect not to just the coins but the collectors/ owners that paid up for them.

So, put the anacronyms in the history books? And call it a day?

 

Yeah I've heard that before. These two coins are both 58s so they're the same quality, it's just that this one is MUCH nicer than the other one...

You're missing a few points here. First, we're talking about virtually uncirculated coins. It's not even possible for them to grade higher than a 67, and the lion share won't reach anywhere close to that. Most would fall 64 or under and they would still be clearly designated as AU in my system (though I prefer VU for virtually uncirculated). And while you talk of flooding the market with these coins in higher grades, what exactly do you think is happening right now? These are the coins already being market graded as MS, and unlike in my proposed system, these are actually being deceptively labeled as mint state right now. The market is flooded with incorrectly labeled AUs that throw off the census data and disrespect collectors who have truly rare BU mint state coins where higher grades are an extreme condition rarity, but there are a lot of market graded AUs.

Take a look at Saints for example. It's impossible to know from the census data the true rarity of actual MS coins without high point wear, since so many graded MS are AUs. That doesn't happen in my system. If you have a Q65 MS you know it is a mint state coin and not a market graded AU. It would be more desirable for those with real mint state coins. Those with a Q65 AU would have a coin that likely upgraded from AU58 or lower market graded MS, but now it would have a quality grade commensurate with superior eye appeal for an AU. I could see people even building sets of high grade AUs because they would be rare, just like how people do lowball sets now. A Q66/67 AU set would be an extreme challenge.

 

Those letter prefixes are from a time many decades ago when there weren't any distorted pictures of unrepresented coins, and most buyers/sellers knew what the grade meant.

Eventually 44 years ago an illustrated book was published to show/describe what experienced collectors would expect to receive when they purchased a coin long distant from an ad in some publication.

It's believed Dealers/TPG have generally tried to diminish those standards since the advent of that publication.

A large portion of my voluminous collection was/is bought with those standards in mind, but generally when placing an ad stating EF-AU condition, buyers often expect BU coins at junk pricing.

JMHO

 

Keeping a system that draws hard lines always gives the market a chance to correct itself, I think it is over due. Look back to the days that a circulated coin made it to 63. Think about this, there is 56, 57, 58, and 59, to work with. The number is immaterial in this conversation the flow of value is. Higher number = higher value
By adding this Q mark to a grade is no different than calling it AU59 +* PL DMPL etc.

 

Except how would you map quality to those grades? AU58 is an exception. Some 58s are there legitimately as coins that circulated but very lightly. Those are the coins that are a step up from 55+. All the other coins are ones that likely did not circulate but were uncirculated coins with some mishandling generally from various types of storage (not necessarily collector storage). All those coins had some MS grade before acquiring the wear. Those are easy to map to 6X because it is essentially the original grade recalculated taking into account the location and severity of wear as if it was any other mark. So a 64 with high point rub could be a Q63 AU for example, and it would have the appearance of a 63 with high point rub, but no other characteristics of circulation that a 58 would have like luster breaks in the fields, hairlines, etc. Those would still cap a coin at Q62 AU. It's better than calling it MS62!

It's also easier to teach people to grade on this scale. I have a Peace dollar that is a 58. In hand it looks superior to my 65. Aside from the very slightest rub, it presents like a 66. It's very easy to explain this looks like a 66 with virtually no wear so it is a Q65+ AU. What's hard to explain is why a coin that puts my MS65 (Q65 MS) to shame should be relegated to a 58.

 

Jaelus, posted: "It's also easier to teach people to grade on this scale. I have a Peace dollar that is a 58. In hand it looks superior to my 65. Aside from the very slightest rub, it presents like a 66. [Bingo! That is exactly what a strictly graded AU-58 is supposed to look like back in the day. A $20 Saint as this was an exhibit in a Federal Trade Commission court case. I graded it AU-58. Most dealer "experts" graded the coin MS-65. The coin had A TRACE OF (friction) WEAR.] It's very easy to explain this looks like a 66 with virtually no wear so it is a Q65+ AU. What's hard to explain is why a coin that puts my MS65 (Q65 MS) to shame should be relegated to a 58."

Jaelus, posted:

"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."

Bingo! You have stumbled into one of the main reasons the "TRUE Technical Grading System" used to identify coins did not work in the commercial market resulting in the establishment of PCGS. Since a coin's EYE APPEAL presented a very huge variable in determining its condition and thus identification, it was one of the variables such as strike or value that was not needed. That coin would be graded exactly how it is today using marks: MS-65, Choice (that was 65 back then) Uncirculated; weakly struck with ugly toning.

Jaelus, posted: "Yes I would not grade that as MS64. [CAC & professional graders have. They and not you evaluated the coin and what we think is just an opinion based on our personal standards that HAVE NO STANDING in the grading system. You don't mind the wiggle room and REJECT a strict "line" for MS that you believe has been crossed with this coin.] 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." [I agree. That's why the AU/MS line should be extremely tight so a coin is not AU one day and MS-something the next. Grade any coin for what it is (example: AU-53 and price it as MS-whatever. Then no knowledgeable dealer/collector/TPGS professional would disagree on its actual condition. The first question I ask students is what is the purpose of grading. They ALWAYS reply to put a value on a coin. As long as that remains the case there will not be a precise, unchanging, simple to understand grading system as we once had. post: 7864461, member: 46237"]A fair point, but I'm not sure in this example you can decouple quality and value.] For example take two of the exact same coin, one MS70 and one MS60. Give each a touch of rub and grade them both AU58. One is going to be a lot more valuable than another, but it's also because of the increase in quality - and that difference in quality between those coins and the spread inbetween them is worlds greater than what can be described in one grade. Which is exactly why market grading exists."

baseball21, posted: "Agreed. If anything the letters just confuse people. [Perhaps, those are just a few people.]

 

@Jaelus I understand your thinking, but why use MS grades to describe an AU coin?
Why not restructure the grades that actually define what the coin is?

 

No, they are MS grades only in the current grading scale. On my scale they are not MS grades. They are quality grades, prefaced by a Q. The grading scale is not wear based it is quality based. MS and AU are designations for these coins noted for informative purposes only and are not the basis of the grade. Trace wear is treated as being a minor/major contact mark which detracts from the grade according to location and severity like any other contact mark. It's a completely different way of thinking about grading.

Don't think of it as grading AU coins as MS. Think of it as deconflicting market grades. MS slabs will definitely contain MS coins which helps correct census data and make MS coins more valuable as they will correctly appear scarcer. AU slabs will definitely contain AU coins, but their grades will be more in line with the wide spread of quality you see in the upper AUs. A Q64 AU and a Q64 MS will be priced very differently, just as how an CAM, PL, star, or other designation attaches a premium to a coin, so will the MS designation. Those that want strictly MS coins will find it easier to do so as they will know the MS designation coins are not market graded. Those that want AU coins will have a significantly easier time acquiring examples they like as they will be graded much more descriptively. It is win-win.

 

This proves my point. A functional grading scale should not present scenarios where professional graders can differ on their grade by 8 points (not to mention the significant difference in value and grading liability that such a scenario can pose). This problem was caused entirely by the breakdown of the relevance of wear-based grading at the AU58 level.

 

AU 58 is what it is and should be no different. It's close to but not UNC. Market grading stinks and should be eliminated.

 

I didn't read every single post but, to me an AU is and AU and should not be jump into the uncirculated range just because it's pretty. Although, I have to admit there are times that it's very difficult to tell if a coin is really an AU or Unc because of toning.

 

I wrote: Bingo! That is exactly what a strictly graded AU-58 is supposed to look like back in the day. A $20 Saint as this was an exhibit in a Federal Trade Commission court case. I graded it AU-58. Most dealer "experts" graded the coin MS-65. The coin had A TRACE OF (friction) WEAR.

Jaelus, replied: "This proves my point. [ Actually this PROVES commercial grading and "NET" grading SUCKS!] A functional grading scale should not present scenarios where professional graders can differ on their grade [Absolutely 100% correct. Another reason the present grading practiced by TPGS's SUCKS. Nevertheless, they make the rules so it is sort of "functional."] by 8 points (not to mention the significant difference in value and grading liability that such a scenario can pose) [This 8 point difference is YOUR MAKING. The AU-58 coin in the discussion was graded MS-64! That's not 8 points. ] This problem was caused entirely by the breakdown of the relevance of wear-based grading at the AU58 level.

This "problem" came about when dealers started TPGS's. It is only a problem for numismatists who can distinguish the difference between the AU/MS line and don't wish to see "sliders" graded low MS.

 

A 58 should always be identified as a Sperber.

 

Who is talking about a 64? Not me. I'm referring to the example you gave about the Saint. And I didn't say the difference was 8 points. I said the graders differ by 8 points (meaning an 8 point spread, not 8 points between grades).

1. 65
2. 64
3. 63
4. 62
5. 61
6. 60
7. 59
8. 58

8 point spread for professional graders. That's the same as between an MS69 and an MS62. That shouldn't be possible. Yet it is because of how badly broken the scale is at AU58.