Technical grading vs Market grading

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

oh, no!
Not again!
Oh, woe is me!
(a little sob inserted here, and then a sigh.)

Seriously, there is an 1896 S Barber quarter on eBay in a PCGS holder graded G-4 that I would grade FA-2. There is almost no reverse left.
Yet my piece, far better and just a hint of wear into the reverse letters comes back AG-3.
If it ain't a case of who you know....then I don't know what is.

As far as market grading.
At the Milwaukee ANA I saw an 1892 O Barber Hald Dollar, Micro O graded G-4. (PCGS)
Naturally I had to see it.
Guess what!
It had barely an AG reverse, and claw marks across the bust on the obverse....market grading at its worst.

 

no

Technical grading is a stanard off of an idealized perfect coin, and a uniform and sciefitcally provable grading based on imperfections from the ideal in an absolute sence, regardless of strike variances, year variances, mint variences, or any other conditions that affect a specific coin make. With technical grading, it doesn't matter if a deficency from the ideal is because of poor strike, or wear.

OTOH, market grading takes into account all of these things, and even differences in the general population of coins available.

IMO, technical grading will eventually become the grading standard and market grading shows more and more cracks in te system every time, especially from slabber to slabber.

Ruben

 

The reason for the failure, those far, or technical grading is not the theory, but the implimentation. A lot of money and time has gone into fitting market grading square peg into a more technical grading round hole. This has got to change and computers are going to do the grading in the future and disputes of grade is going to great diminish.

There is a futre coming where you will get a grade for a coin which will read 67.254 MS off ideal.

Ruben

 

I know and admit I know nothing about technical or any other types of grading. I am completely pesimistic as to any type of grading. I've noticed way to many times people have submitted a coin that was in a slab from one TPG to another and received a different grade. I've noticed that the lighting at some coin shows make coins look different than when you get home. Seen the same effect at coin shops. I've asked so called experts as to thier idea of a grade on a coin and get several different answers from different people. I've shown the same coin to a so called expert a few weeks apart and got two different answers. Regardless of what it is called, everyone seems to have a different interpretation on what the grading system is all about. I am very leary of the latest terminologies used in the coin collecting industry and it is becoming an industry.
Possibly being from a time in history when there was only a few grades for coins, only a few coin books, no TV shows selling colored coins and plenty of old coins in circulation, makes me irritated with so many types of explanations of my hobby. I've seen web sites with actual coin collecting terminology. We've come far when this hobby now has it's own vocabulary. I have enough trouble with just English.
Sorry but I'll still stick to G, F, Unc and Proof until no one knows what I'm talking about.

 

I think we should have quantum theory grading so TPGs will always be right.

This coin neither exists in a state of
Uncirculated, nor does it not exist in
a state of Uncirculated. :bow:

That'll be $29.95 please.

 

Carl, I agree with much of what you say. Like everything else in the 21st century, collecting is becomming too complex. Personally, I think people often overpay for coins in very high grades. If some "expert" didn't put a number on it, which bestows the coin with almost magical powers, folks would be more cautious about being willing to pay triple the price for an MS65 vs MS64 coin.

 

Sorry for bringing up an old post...

Given the discussion here, would it be safe to characterize technical vs. market grading as:
Technical grade gives you an absolute range (maybe like a coarse adjustment) while market grading provides a, possibly subjective, finer adjustment to the grade that could be based on population, relative grading to the series, toning, etc?

Of course, it seems that one could grade just using technical grading, but that most grades have a little market grading adjustment added in, like those done by the TPGs.

Does that sound about right?

 

In an ANA grading course the following example was used:

Suppose you have two coins that are identical except for grade. Coin A is Uncirculated but has lots of bag marks. It is an ugly coin. Its technical grade is MS-60. Let's say that in MS-60 this coin is valued at $100.

Coin B has been lightly circulated but still retains good luster and does not have many scratches or bag marks. It has great eye appeal. Its technical grade is AU-58 because it is circulated. Let's say in AU-58 this coin is valued at $80.

The AU-58 coin is much more attractive than its MS-60 counterpart and, even though it is circulated, will sell for more than the beat up MS-60. Let's say the grader thinks the AU-58 coin will sell for $120, which happens to be the value of this coin in MS-62. He will therefore grade the coin at MS-62 because that is the grade that represents its value in the market.

I have a lot of trouble with Market Grading. I am an engineer. To me 2 + 2 = 4. Uncirculated means no circulation wear. Circulation wear means it is not Uncirculated. I have a hard time giving a CIRCULATED coin an UNCIRCULATED grade. It just does not add up to me.

 

it doesn't to me either, and we've been around this block like a million times... I think the whole thing boils down to pretty much as you have stated, and I think that we can all agree that the circulated coin in your example is more valuable. It seems to be the final grade that we all seem to hang up on. I agree with you that a circulated is a circulated coin to me. Even still I would definately pay more for the circulated coin in your example. Its value and its grade to me are seperate things and I can view tham as unlinked.

 

Same here, and I agree. Thanks for the clarification - so it's not *really* the case that market grading is a fine adjustment, it could be but it has the capability to be a complete override of the technical grade based on subjective measurement. ?

 

Here is a direct link (as the article/source is copyright protected) to EarlyUS.com and his article as it pertains to this subject.

http://earlyus.com/art003-marketgrading.pdf
www.earlyus.com

 

Thanks for the links CappedBustDimes. :thumb:

Take Care
Ben

 

Holy Smoke!!!

First I want to thank you, GDJMSP, for opening this huge can of worms. Actually I am serious when I say that this post is one of the best I've seen here. Sad to say I missed it originally.

I wish to one day become very proficient in grading coins, mostly my own or the ones I intend to buy. This whole market versus technical grading blows my mind. I realize that this is the world of coin grading and this "is" the reality of it all. I will now go back and study these two concepts of grading and hopefully find the way to get them to work to my best benefit, as a collector.

Again thanks for the education GDJMSP. Your input here, or better, you invoking input and enlightening us new coin junkies to this wonderful, confusing, and never ending learning world of numismatics is what makes CoinTalk the best site to belong to.

Good Day and God Bless You!

Allen

 

Man, this thread is very informative. :thumb: Hobo, thanks, it was probably said before in this thread, (I'm sorry to those that did say it) but this made it a bit more clear to me. Thanks! :thumb:

Phoenix

 

Au-62???

 

By Joe, or Jack I think you've got it!!!

Good one.

 

good post. great reading! when i returned to collecting coins a few yrs ago...this really threw me off. i had taken ana courses in 1983 and my thinking was in light of those yrs. i had always been taught that technical grading was that all coins were created equal and that the merits of coin grading was simply the amt of wear and contact marks, ect. which the coin had incurred over its life. strike was not a factor taken into acct. it was up to the collector to pick up the subtleties in comparing coins. if a coin had a certain amt of wear and marks, ect..to be graded, for example,xf., then it was an xf coin even if the strike was weak.
i still have a habit of viewing the coin technically to give it a grade. even if it was "prettier" than another coin of same grade, i would not bump it to au. to me, it was still an xf coin due to wear and marks and it was up to me to find a specimen which was nicer . market grading would bump a pretty coin even tho, technically it was the same . i still have the same feeling and it is simply up to me as a collector, to find the nicest coin for my collection which meets technical standards of a given grade but with the bonus of it just being a nicer strike, more luster, ect.
i simply believe that every single collector needs to be able to grade and set standards for his or her own collection rather than rely on what a holder (whether a 2x2 or a tpg graded coin) says. after all, in the end, it is your money and your opinion on what a coin is worth to you, regardless of what grade you want to call it.
you, as the collector, are the one who ultimately lives with the coin and it comes down to trading money for a given item. you have to decide what it is worth to you. my coin collecting is done for fun and recreation but i still want the best coin i can get (in my own opinion) for the money i trade for it. its nice to look thru your collection and be happy w/ the coins you have rather than the holders or stickers someone else puts on them.
hope my opinion makes some sense...i still feel somewhat like a dinosaur in the numismatic world (and not just due to my age!!)...once again...great post. i really appreciate it when great numismatic minds like doug and bone (as well as others), share thier knowledge. you are doing so many collectors a huge favor when they can learn from you.
may God bless you all.....steve