100-Point Coin Grading Scale Created by Ron Guth

Most of the hobby has already said no to this stupid idea. It's way too late to be changing things. The grading services would probably love it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm certain that Ron Guth, as a previous president of PCGS, is fully aware of this.

He even talks about it in his article!

 

The last thing we need is a MORE COMPLEX grading system. As it stands, Sheldon's Mint State grades are a mess-thousands of dollars of difference for a mere point on the scale. The fact that one can resend a coin for grading and get 1 or possibly 2 more (or less) points shows how much we split hairs already.

If I could wish away anything, it would be all MS grades except 60, 63, 65, 67, and 70. Sadly, this is far less likely to happen than creating a more complex system so people can squeeze a few more dollars out of their coins.

 

Well, that's exactly what they had in the 1970's, and we progressed past that. So the odds of going back to that are zero.

 

Lets go back to G-VG-F-VF-XF-MS-ChoiceMS- GemMS. We are headed to 3 decimal points once computers really start grading MS63.989 .

Sorry to be echo, typing.

 

"Progressed"...you are right though. There's too much money tied up in it, for both collectors and the grading services.

 

Ya think?

 

Welp, there it is. AU58 is "lesser quality", and "GS80" (née MS60) is "greater quality".

The Guth Grading Scale[SM]: leading the way -- in the wrong direction. Wake me up when someone proposes a "scale" acknowledging that there's more than one dimension to coin quality.

 

I'll tell you what I tell my students:

Be more specific.

Explain what you mean? And explain how that can be encapsulated in a grading scheme?

 

Hey, I already put in my 25 years as a student.

The Sheldon and Guth scales both say that the presence of any "wear" makes a coin of "lesser quality" than an uncirculated specimen. This completely leaves out strike quality, "bag marks", toning (good or bad), and "eye appeal" (if you believe that's somehow separate from the other factors).

Me, I'd like to see a vector grade, with separate ratings for at least wear, strike quality, and surface integrity (addressing bag marks and such). If you must, also offer a single magnitude that incorporates all three -- but stop saying that a dog of a bag-beaten weakly-struck MS60 is "of better quality" than a pristine, hammered coin with wisps of friction on its high points. Or weaseling out by lying that the latter coin "market grades" as "low MS".

 

This popped up again this afternoon. The most recent CoinWeek podcast covers this topic. Ron Guth discusses the proposed grading system with CoinWeek editor Charles Morgan.

https://coinweek.com/coinweek-podcast/ron-guth-proposes-100-point-coin-grading-scale/

 

Without wading through the responses of this post I'll just interject......weary........weary of more grading conditions. There are enough to abide at the moment. Got an ax to grind, old fellow?

 

PCGS floated a trial ballon proposing a 100 point scale years ago (I believe while Guth was President) It got shot down. So then they gave us the + grades instead.

In the article Guth says it gets rid of the + grades and gives them whole number.

"Currently, the coin market squeezes plus or half grades, known as split grades, into the 60 to 70 range. The Guth 100 Point Coin Grading Scale assigns whole numbers to split grades and eliminates decimals, rounding and pluses," said Guth."

Yes, for now. If this was adopted does anyone believe that years from now "in between" grades would not reappear? In the early years of TPG grading there were only three grades of MS. Then they added two more, then added another and finally added five more. In the early years of slabbing ACG briefly introduced decimal grades and were laughed at because it was said no one could grade that finely. In 1991 Compugrade used decimal grades but the company failed. Now they use + grades for in between grades and no one batts an eye. Then CAC looks and tell you if it is solid or high end for the grade which effectively doubles the number of grades again. No matter what they do eventually someone will create a new "between" grade to try and justify a higher price.

 

So, isn’t that basically Rick Snow’s grading system. PDS?

 

My developing perspective (being new and all):

My understanding is that when grading the first step is to determine uncirculated vs. circulated. That first step has nothing to do with the quality of the coin. Once that determination is made the quality scale kicks in with the number of 50-59 for AU and 60-70 for MS.

I think attractive AU-58s should sell for more than many MS60-63s that I see; however, I think many buyers assume that the AU/MS part of the grade is related to quality when it clearly isn't.

 

just follow the money, it's all about adding to the bottom line.

 

New update this morning from PCGS President Don Willis via CoinWeek

 

It wouldn't be long until we get 88+ or 88.1, 88.2, etc. Follow the Money. Didn't Dr. Seuss write about this scenario in " The Sneetches". Happy star on your belly.

 

Y'know, if this proposed scale really does skip over grades from 60 to 79, it's really proposing to replace a 70-point scale with an 80-point scale. Just in case you needed any more help to realize just how incredibly silly it is.

 

Well, guess what Ron: You didn’t.