Would this grade a ms64?

There’s nothing wrong if you want to grade purely technically, but you’re in the small minority on that one. Technical is a big part of grading but there’s components to it that aren’t technical which are taken into account and should be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Every coin can get different depending on what day and who graded it. Why many people crack coins out trying for a higher grade. So one day this can be a 63 and the next a 64. Its a high end 63 or a low end 64. Or it could be a 63 with a cac sticker or a 64 with no bean. It’s all a judgement call of the graders and each one is different too and can grade a coin different each day too

 

Too many posts since I posted last to effectively use the Quote feature, so I'll respond randomly.

1) The ANA has never "written", "decided", or "mandated" ANYTHING regarding grading. They have merely "endorsed" what Ken Bressett and Q. David Bowers have (and this is quote) "compiled, arranged, and edited". The biggest problem with people is (and I'm including site moderators here) is JUST LIKE in the "Red Book", too many people read the grading descriptions and look at the pretty pictures, but it is stone-cold butt-stupid obvious they skipped over the introductory paragraphs where it is discussed how to AND HOW NOT TO use what follows.

2) The ENTIRETY of what follows in (full title) The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins, 7th edition is NOT intended to ESTABLISH definitions of grades of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, but rather to REPORT what the editors FIND out there in the wild. In the current 7th edition, on pages 14-15, this passage is quoted word for word, "Lest a reader get the wrong idea, this book reports the grading being used in the marketplace. It does not create it. If the 7th edition were to give definitions that were not useful in the buying and selling of coins in real life, it would not be of much use!"

3) Technical grading, as defined above, is "not be(ing) of much use".

4) As recently as the ANA Anaheim show of August 2016, Rick Snow, the "Mac Daddy" of Indian Head Cents, has put forth a throughly thought out idea of how to more informatively grade coins, particularly applicable to copper coins, and even more particularly applicable to IHC's. But it had something important to offer all series, as well. It has been greeted with a gigantic collective yawn accompanied by the chirping of the common field cricket. People want and expect simplicity, and will reject mind numbing gratuitous complexity. One thing matters - Which coin is better?

5) Moral of the story: no one is EVER done learning, and if one ever is tempted to stop, he is rightly labelled "irrelevant".

 

One of the more interesting discussions/arguments over grading standards that I've seen here at CT.

CT should have a "Featured Discussion" link. This one should be in it.

Thanks for giving me something to think about, gentlemen.

 

And ambiguous...and a moot point since it has been graded 64 by the "experts".

 

Kurt, your comments in this thread are fantastic. In your debate with Eddie, I felt like I was rereading my own comments from years past. However, you have taken it to a different level. I only ever tried to convince him of the virtues of market grading whereas you have highlighted to pitfalls of the grading system of old and framed the progress of today's grading system.

Bravo, I take my hat off to you, as this has been the most compelling argument ever offered to Eddie on the subject. Sadly, I still don't think he will see the light.

 

And keep in mind, I'm not even a toning fan, which is surely part of what's going on.

 

And what influences the marketplace? Marketing. The TPGs crack the whip and we jump like trained seals. Some "grading" standards. Grades are about the state of preservation in every hobby but coins...

 

That’s not true at all. The state of preservation is a major part of the grade. Luster, marks, strike to an extent, surface quality ect are all part of grading

 

In the immortal words of The Lone Ranger's trusty friend Tonto, in response to the Ranger's observation that "we're in trouble now", upon being surrounded by annoyed Indians, ... "What you mean 'we', paleface?" Again, use any standard you like, just don't expect to be followed.

 

Dang it, gonna make me blush.