ANACS vs NGC

I don't have an opinion on improvements until I could see what is being proposed. Fundamentally improvements to the current system might be in order. I just don;t think changing it to a 0-100 scale is going to change anything. Grading is subjective you always have those coins that are in between grades no matter the scale its just when you have basically three standards out there, ANA, PCGS and NGC and they are all different. I would support an improvement if it brought some consistency to the hobby across the board. Thinks of the frenzy of switching to a 100 point scale now. The only two winners are the two top grading companies.
My opinion is that the sheldon scale is known and understood by most collectors keep it, improve it if you want but keep it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...and obviously over time, the grade changes as the value of the coin increases.

Brasher Doubloon
1870-S H10C
1804 Dollar
etc.

In the ideal system, as Mike states, the 1870-S would have remained graded XF+ yet be valued at its current MS level. A correct grade set by a standard, recorded in a computer, and fixed forever. Only the coin's value would change over time.

 

Interesting

 

Ain't it? I just hoiked that one up sitting here watching Bucknell/ W Va.

Nana Foulland (Bucknell center) played HS ball 7 miles from here, and a kid better than him is coming from here to UMiami (FL) next year.

 

Here's what we know about the Sheldon scale. It is now seen as so inadequate that it is in maximum disfavor in the coin series for which it was developed - copper.

EAC hates it. Rick Snow hates it. Get Angel Dee's and Charmy Harker on the 'hatah' list and all the icons will agree.

 

The raw market still exists though it is shrinking in the higher end and presets a heck of a lot more mindfields than the graded market does. If said collector did send their collection in and was way off or got a lot of details grades that would be a strong argument for why the TPGs exist

Investors aren't why there are TPGs, most if not all of the big money spenders are strong to very strong graders. If you have millions to throw around you can make far more money in other areas if that is all the goal is.

Using slabs doesn't make anyone less of a numismatist either. The internet has been a large part of why slabs have become so popular as it gives as added level of security as well as liquidity. They've also brought a lot of people to the hobby who would have otherwise been uncomfortable making such purchases. Everything in life gets appraised/certified for sales now a days (cars, houses, land, firearms ect) coins are no different. Really the TPGs protect the buyers more than the sellers.

 

This statement is absolutely false! Unfortunately, over the last forty years all the newbies have twisted/altered what technical grading actually was and what it was used for.

What ANACS called/taught/used as "technical grading" was a bastardized version cooked up by the new boys on the block in Colorado who had no clue of the actual system of precise technical grading used at ANACS (only while in DC) for internal record keeping and then by INSAB, the first grading service.

A technically perfect, flatly struck 1884-O Morgan, with blazing original luster and no marks may get into a slab today as MS-64 +* w/gold bean; yet its technical grade could be MS-70, Flat Strike.

True technical grading was developed to describe the condition of preservation of the coin based on what it looked like when it was struck. It was very strict so the grade would not change (one day AU [rub] the next week MS). With true technical grading, color, strike, or any other description was added. Technical grading did not have anything to do with a coin's commercial value or eye-appeal! In one grading seminar, when true technical grading was explained, the class was shown a Washington quarter technically graded as Proof-65, cut in half!

Anyway, true, original, technical grading is dead. It's only used by some instructors in basic grading seminars to get students up to speed.

 

mikenoodle, posted: "Here's my take, and I completely realize that this is NOT the way that the system works, but here's what I think:

"Grade the coin. Let the buyer and seller value the coin."

Amen! Simple solution to most of our problems.

 

Exactly. The coin's grade is the coin's grade. The value will (and should) change over time.

 

Most good solutions are simple.

Yes... it's true... we agree

 

Okay, point taken. Then it can't handle strike or color (yecch!) without modifiers, much like Rick Snow's system. There doesn't seem to be a big appetite for several types of modifiers.

 

And seriously, who would advocate this? Strikes me (pun fully intended) as a nearly useless exercise.

 

I accept that ANY forced linear scale that needs to include non-technical elements is doomed to failure. It's a three of four factor universe being forced onto a linear scale. Rather than leave so much out, there is only one conceivable choice to even attempt - and that is value. No? Propose another. I'm all ears.

T

 

The problem with including value, Kurt is this:

Over time, values change. Should the grade change along with value? No, because if it did, as the value goes down, then so goes the grade and if the coin is slabbed and the grade goes down, the TPG owes someone money because of their guarantee.

 

No, no, no. It's just RELATIVE value within the type/date/mint paradigm. Not the whole universe of coins. Yes, that still leaves taste changes to include.

We already have geographical preference differences. Most of Asia degrades toning, while, for reasons that escape me, North America upgrades it.

The guarantee does not cover market value changes. Only that a coin graded X will be worth "X money". If it isn't, then the guarantee kicks in.

Rather than make a special exception to the guarantee for milk spots, I'd suggest they ban the MS70/PF70 grade for any series found to be prone to milk spots.

 

but if you are slabbing a coin with a stated grade, should it say: In Asia MS-65, In USA MS-63, in Europe AU-58 to accommodate your geographic preferences?

No. Leave the subjective out of the grade and the grades won't change over time.

 

The problem with what you propose is that with a market graded coin, it may be worth X money today, but worth Y money tomorrow. Quit trying to bring value into a grading equation. That's the variable that is completely screwing up the whole deal.

 

Umm, Europe has typically denied the very concept of AU exists. They want to go right from XF to Unc.

We can't do with fewer than four, and they don't want any AU grades.

 

funny... funny...

My point is that if you market grade, don't expect the grades to stay the same over time. A TPG grades coins and as far as I know, the slabs that they produce are made to last for years on end.

Grades (in the concept of a state of preservation) are constant. Markets are fluid.

That said, if the grade on the coin is only good for a limited time, the slab should have a freshness date, or should disintegrate after a short time.

 

Given the massive degree of changes of coins IN THE SLAB that I have observed since the 1990's, I think your last suggestion is quite appropriate.

All three (then) major services - PCGS, NGC, small slab ANACS.