Should there be fewer MS grades and a suffix to indicated dings on circulated coins?

Keep in mind that MS coins are judged mostly on dings and scratches … a MS60 has a lot more than a MS65. However, circulated coins are judged mostly on wear … a XF has more than an AU. But an AU55 or AU58 coin can be a lot more attractive than a low-grade MS coin. If not for the slight wear, it might have graded MS66 or MS67.

There is a mystique about uncirculated coins that they must be more attractive than any circulated coin. After all, they are Mint State. And this idea is usually reflected in their value.

I think there should fewer MS grades. 11 is too many, and plus and sticker grades make things worse. And perhaps a suffix letter for circulated grades to indicate the number of dings and scratches … 40a and 40b for example.

Many times, I’ve looked at XF or AU coins and thought, “Yeah, very little wear.” But some look like they’ve barely been handled. Others look like a herd of cattle trampled them.

Mike

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not only that but does: "buy the highest grade coin that you can afford" make sense anymore? How long has that mantra been around, a hundred years?
Back when someone thought that up grades went from Extra Fine to Uncirculated. There was a big difference in how each looked. It may have made sense to pass on a Extra Fine at $1 for an Unc at $2. Today there is little difference between grades and big differences between prices.

 

...and the grading standards keep slipping and sliding, so that 65 you stretched for ten years ago might be an albatross - unless you pay to have it crossed or reconsidered to be a 67 by today's standards, or pile beans onto it.

The winning move is to "buy the coin, not the slab", possibly raw, if you're confident in your grading ability. But then the 65 you bought, which would be a 67 from today's graders, will suddenly be a 62 to the person you're trying to sell it to.

 

It was simpler before but at this point I would not eliminate any of the grades. It would likely cause more issues and make it confusing when you are comparing an "older" holdered MS 63 to a "new" MS 60a.

The one "innovation" that has popped up in the last few years is the NGCX 10 point grading scale. That does not appear to have caught on besides VaultBox and other mystery game slabs.

 

Just my opinion but if I'm paying good money for a slabbed coin, I'm not playing that stupid game with that ridiculous reinventing of the wheel...........unless I'm planning on cracking it out or doing a crossover attempt upgrade at PCGS. I'm on the fence as to what I think of CAC other than I'll buy the coins in their slab if I like them enough. I have a couple of them.

 

Yeah. And I don't think that is catching on either. I'm seeing fewer and fewer of them for sale in the past 6 months. All it is good for is confusing new collectors.

 

To me mint state means it should look the day it was struck.
Uncirculated and full luster. Way too many coins that circulated and have scratches and poor luster get graded MS. "Oh those are bag marks."
You know I don't care. A nick and a gouge should be a demerit no matter where they came from. And they aren't always correct in their assessment. "Oh that coin was struck with a planchet flaw." Too bad, it shouldn't be MS in that condition. "Oh those are die polishing lines." Well it detracts from the beauty of the coin. How can they even see through the toning and grade a coin MS? It wasn't toned the day it was struck.

 

Another winning move is walk away from the Rent-A-Grade Tower of Babble garbage and collect Exo, where grading is a bore, not a god. Unfortunately, it's hard to completely walk away from something that's so much fun to make fun of.

And nothing is "Mint State" after it gets punched out of the collar.

 

I would agree with having less MS grades.
Although I like graded (slab) coins, I also buy coins that I find “fit my eye” . I have bought numerous coins “raw” from European auctions.. some graded where I thought, some not mostly due to light cleaning; but the coin was very appealing to the eye.
I like the quote “buy the coin not the slab” but unfortunately when you eventually have to resell, not everyone agrees with that premise!

 

Most of the coins that I buy are expensive enough that with few exceptions (like ancients), I want an expert opinion on authenticity and grade. I’ve learned the hard way that my skills aren’t good enough. And yes, I’ve taken classes on grading. So, slabs are mandatory for most of my purchases. But of course, the coin behind the plastic must appeal to me.

Mike

 

There are so many fakes these days, if you are buying an expensive rare coin, it is better to err on the side of caution and buy an authenticated one, slabbed and graded, even if it's a details coin. On lessor coins, I side with risk rather than caution, it's a calculated risk with more upside.

 

I have little issue with the current array of Mint state grading designations. Unfortunately I expect changes to come. I feel it is only a matter of time ; someone will introduce a new AI/computer grading system and market a CAC type stickering program with a 100 new desegnations. just my thoughta on the topic. James

 

The problem with the current grading system is not the 70 point max,
but the fact that all coins, all issues, all dates are not all graded on the same scale. "Oh there was a problem this year so what looks like VF is actually AU." "This is a rare key date and it gets a higher grade than it should if it was a different date. (huh?)" "This is an 18th century copper and the grading scale takes that in to account." Etc. There are a number of these excuses. Better to give it a real grade with some kind of asterisk or explanation.

 

Agree.

Famous rarities definitely get better consideration from the grading services. The Dexter 1804 dollar is a good example. Ole Dexter punched a small “D” on the reverse. Did PCGS give it a details grade? Nah, PR-65. Now, what do think would happen if you punched your initial into a gem BU 1896 dollar and sent it to PCGS?

Mike

 

Depends. Is mine the only 1896 dollar that didn't get melted once silver hit $1K/ounce?

 

I think all NGCX does is change the 10 point scale from 60-70 to 9.0-10.0.

I am still pissed they aren't allowed in the registry, it would be a very simple conversion.

 

This immediately made me think of the Yosemite Decimal System for grading rock climbing routes. In the way back time when I dabbled in it, there was just 5.10, 5.11 etc routes. Then they added a, b, c, d to distinguish finer degrees of difficulty between similar routes. You can see that they've done the same with the other ranking systems by adding + and -. You can also see that the 5.15d level is labeled "not human." I think they decided that 5.15 was going to be the absolute end of the scale after adding 5.13 or 5.14 over the years as people started actually climbing more and more absurdly impossible routes. Now someone has climbed a 5.15d and what do they do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_(climb) ). It's similar to the MS70 coin grade that they now give out like candy.

With circulated coins, before we start doing a, b, c, d, we can start using the numerical grades already available. Why is there no AU56 or AU57? I think we've all seen coins that are better than 55 but not quite 58. And doesn't CAC kind of do this already, giving their sticker on "A" and "B" coins for the grade, but not "C"?

Rock climbing scales:

 

Again I'm reminded of the climbing world. Mountaineering has a completely different scale than sport climbing. Should hammered coins, screw press coins, modern high speed production coins, all be on the same grading scale? No. Ancients and EAC have their own scale (which I have yet to decipher).