Market Grading vs. Technical Grading - Round 35!!! Ding!

As I said, you are missing something. You believe something that is not true. Allow me to quote from the 1st edition ANA grading guide, which is based on technical grading.

"If an uncirculated coin exhibits weakness due to striking or die wear, or unusual (for the variety) die wear, this must be adjectivally mentioned in addition to the grade. Examples are : MS60, lightly struck, or Choice Uncirculated, lightly struck, and MS70, lightly struck."

As you can see, a coin being lightly struck does not affect the grade in the least, even in MS70 grade.

However, in the market grading system, quality of strike does matter. I quote from the 6th edition of the ANA grading guide which is based on the market grading system.

"A coin which is MS65 from a technical o rnumerical viewpoint but which is lightly struck can be described as MS64, MS63 or some lower grade, without mentioning the weakness, this is the practice of most third party grading systems at present. A weakly struck coin cannot be graded as MS65 or finer. To qualify as MS65 a coin must have a fairly sharp strike (but not necesaarily a completely full strike).

 

Mike I never said anyone doesn't have a right to post nor did I say anyone was an idiot. The point I was trying to get across is that few people even understand what technical grading is and what is based upon. Yes, a lot of people have a lot ideas about it and think they understand it. So I merely them to define what they think technical grading is based upon.

I am not making some rule for folks to post here, I am trying to clarify the facts, that's all.

 

Fair enough, but if you can agree that the coin can be MS and not have a full horn, I would think it would kind of hard to argue that it cannot be XF or VF without a full horn.

 

Is it ? Sure, if one chooses to interpret things the way they want, they can take them to mean almost anything. But when you read the written word directly from the book, that's kind of hard to argue with in my opinion.

And since you also proclaim, like me, that we should have one set of grading standards that everybody uses, how can you make such a statement ?

 

But that's the point Darryl, with technical grading quality of strike does not count. You did see this didn't you ? " and MS70, lightly struck."

If a coin can be lightly struck and still graded as MS70, that pretty much proves my point.

 

Darryl the point I am making is that in techincal grading a coin can achieve the grade of MS70 even though it has a weak strike. That means that quality of strike doesn't count against the grade. And it doesn't matter whether it should be or not - in point of fact it isn't.

But in the market grading system, the quality of strike does count - a coin cannot, under any circumstances, achieve the MS70 grade.

 

But Bone it is not about what should be or shouldn't be, my question was about is or isn't.

Now you can discuss all you want about what you think technical grading should be - anyone can. But I am talking about facts, not opinions or interpetations. Technical grading existed, and its standards were well known, and were in fact written down for all to see and use. And trying to say that is not so, or that is not technical grading as I know it, is doing nothing but avoiding the facts because they do not support your ideas.

Perhaps what really bothers people in these discussions is for them to learn that the grading practices they follow, are actually very, very close to what they rant and rave about - market grading. They just don't know it because they have misconceived ideas about what market grading consist of and what technical grading does not consist of.

Now, if you would be so kind Bone, instead of just stating how your opinion of how your idea of technical grading differs from mine - how about facts to support your idea of it ? I think you'll have a hard time finding any.

 

OK, you have posted links to how different people define technical grading. That's all well and good except for thing - they provide interpretation of what they think technical grading is based upon. But if one goes back to the books where the standards are actually written down, they find quite differently.

And that is exactly my point. Nobody does that anymore. Instead they choose to go with what they think. And yes Bone, I am saying that those people are wrong.

For example, on the Steve Estes page he has -

MARKS Severity, size, placement
LUSTRE Dull to bright
STRIKE Poor to great

As I have already illustrated, none of that is considered in the actual written technical standards.

From the Early Us site -

In theory, technical grade is based on quantifiable factors of a coin's level and quality of
preservation. These factors are: wear, luster and strike and color.

Same thing for quality of strike, it does not apply. And just because they seem to think it does, like you and others, does not mean it does. Yes, color does apply, but only in regard to copper. The technical standards do reflect this.

In regard to luster, it does not. There are only 3 MS grades in technical grading, MS60, MS65 and MS70. What the standards say is this - MS60, may lack full mint luster - MS65, must have full mint luster - MS70, must have full mint luster. And that's it says.

As for the Coin Centric link, it is based upon market grading so I do not understand why you are using it.

And the ebay link - not sure who the poster was, but his information is flawed.

Size and location of marks are not used in technical grading. Neither is luster except to say it must be there. And special designations and definitely not used in regard to determining the grade of a coin.

Now to answer your question, the comments I quoted from the ANA guides can be found on the following pages - 1st edition, page 19. 6th edition, page 21.

And these comments -

They support my position.