IF YOU RAN THE GRADING ROOM...

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Insider, Jul 2, 2020.

  1. STU

    STU Active Member

    I believe grading is over grading system a lot of coins would not make a good grade with all the damage I have seen and get a au or better they would be junk to me and get low grades in the real world its all about selling at a high price as much as possible to me its a scam just try and resell these graded coins its a joke what the dealers will offer
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    Just trying to figure out how this would work:D!

    Coins would be submitted for authentication for a fee and you would check a box for free grading, or submit for free grading and skip authentication?

    I have come up with a different "bean" for many of mine- "authenticated" Dark Side example, no grade required...

    bean.jpg
     
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I've been screaming that very thing from the rafters for 20 years ! Now you Mike, you might be the only person the planet who's been saying it for longer than me !

    As already mentioned, it's been tried. NGC flat out refused to grade any coin minted after 1964, from the day they opened until 2001.

    Unh uh - you aint EVER getting me in one of those rooms ! My mama drowned all her dumb kids.

    And as you well know Michael, anybody who wants a coin graded by me, they get it done, and done for free. Been that way for over 30 years, aint gonna change ;)
     
    Kentucky, micbraun and wxcoin like this.
  5. wxcoin

    wxcoin Getting no respect since I was a baby

    I've become comfortably numb!
     
  6. ksparrow

    ksparrow Coin Hoarder Supporter

    In my grading room, there would be no numeric grades. Grading is subjective and using a numeric scale gives an illusion of precision and objectivity to an inherently subjective process. My graders would just use G,F,VF,EF, AU, and MS, with a modifier for "Gem" at each grade for coins that were really nice and eye appealing (think the A&B coins for CAC). To eliminate the endless controversies over "is it AU or Ms-something, is that wear or cabinet friction, etc., etc, " I think a category of AU-MS would take care of that. Problem coins would be labelled "Genuine" and the main problems(s) enumerated on the label.
    "Moderns" would be anything made after 1965, and would be given either of 2 grades: "Nice" or "Spend it.":p
    Since we have gotten rid of numeric grades, I don't think there has to be a triad of graders to agree on a number. I would like to have a group of people, each of whom has expertise with several series, so they could more accurately factor in vagaries of strike , die condition, and so on that are unique to a number of older series.
    Just my thoughts and pipe dreams on a hot July 4.
     
  7. RonSanderson

    RonSanderson Supporter! Supporter

    I believe the biggest advances would come in two areas.
    1. Eliminate the AU / MS boundary completely.

      Instead, give a score for “surface condition”. If the coin is well struck, free from excessive planchet flaws, hairlining, dings and dents, AND WEAR, then it grades at the top of the scale.

      A baggy MS 63 and a super-nice AU could grade the same, since one is less perfect because of wear and the other is less perfect because of contact marks. After all, we often have trouble distinguishing between weak strike vs. worn dies vs. handling vs. cabinet friction, so just get rid of those distinctions and just grade the surface you see.

    2. Rethink everything about Details grading.

      It lacks all subtlety and buries useful information about what is wrong with the coin. It’s just black and white, with no shades of gray.

      If you have a coin that would be an MS66-67 but also has a very light wheel mark, or a tiny wrapping machine mark buried near a rim, or has a tiny bit of dip residue that didn’t get rinsed off, why trash it all the way down to Details, which most people price as MS60?

      I have superb Details coins from all three of these categories that have left a lot of CT members puzzled trying to find the problem. I would definitely prefer to have the grade remain intact, with a separate category for Degree of Damage, where each of these could get a 5 out of 100 to show how minor it is. (5 would mean: The grader saw it, but you probably won’t. 95 of 100 would mean: What kind of coin did you say this was supposed to be?)

      That would be a better service for both the buyer and seller to make their own decisions about how much effect the condition should have on the desirability, and hence, value.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
    Randy Abercrombie and micbraun like this.
  8. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    I brought this up too and suggested to have two different categories for “minor” and “major” issues. This could be a game changer in my opinion. As you said, it shouldn’t be black and white and could be a better option than net grades. Fingerprints on a coin should result in a details grade. Please don’t grade coins with distracting prints MS66.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
    RonSanderson likes this.
  9. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    If you want to see some life in one of the forums check out @GDJMSP's "Listen Up" post in the Ancient Coins forum.
     
    Kentucky likes this.
  10. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    Great song! Especially with Van M in it.
     
    wxcoin likes this.
  11. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    If we're redoing grading in general for this exercise this is the first thing I would do. I would take it a step further and get rid of the letters in grading as well and just have the 1-70 in a straight scale that takes into account all aspects of quality. One that doesn't have a silly arbitrary line where a touch of friction is "supposed" to make an otherwise 66 or so max out at 58/58+ while coins that look like they were thrown in a wood chipper are graded higher just because there's no rub.
     
  12. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Since folks can't grasp the concept of an AU+/* or both it seems that we need to add a slider category? The concept is actually really simple A slider should be given a plus/ star or both. Except, the easiest way to cause confusion is too make this area a crap show. Now AU50 to MS64. That's an 8 point spread. The TPG says and guess what the sheep follow the pocket book.

    Honestly, if you can't figure out what is wear VS UNC then why am I paying you for a service?
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
  13. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Already suggested. Unfortunately, owners of two TPGS thought that printing a label (Acme Coin Co) and assigning that company's grade would compromise the TPGS slab. I wanted to call the service: You Grade it. Honest. :D

    In my experience, at least 40% of all TPGS MS/PR-70 labels are on sub-par coins! o_O The true percentage varies by the TPGS.

    Unfortunately, at one time, MS meant NO TRACE OF WEAR. When all the old collectors are gone calling AU's MS will be done by everyone.
     
    john65999 likes this.
  14. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    When I first started collecting coins I was taught that in order to tell if a coin was uncirculated (for example a Lincoln Cent) hold it up to the light, tilt it back and forth, and if there was any darkening on the cheekbone, it wouldn't be considered uncirculated. The same applied to other coins but different high spots. Today I see coins with that darkening in a few spots and they're still considered uncirculated. (Or MS).
     
    Insider likes this.
  15. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    From the "grading room"- same coin sold a few months apart:

    2-grades-hc.jpg
    This was posted in a Forum I am a member of and also a friend started a separate thread in this Forum...
     
    wxcoin likes this.
  16. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    They would be worth a heck of a lot less today, because there would be a boatload of them.

    Already been done, two different ways. Back around 2001, Alan Hager sold "instant grading service kits. For a set price you would get the shells, inserts, labels, and the sonic welding machine. And would sell you additional supplies as needed. I believe the cost was $25,000.

    The second way came in 2003, also from Hagar, for a smaller licensing fee he would slab your coins, under your company name, at the grades you assigned. It was a holdering service only and Accugrade would not do any of the grading.
     
    Insider likes this.
  17. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    And they probably started because their restriction was probably driving a lot of their business to PCGS. If you had coins you wanted to submit and there were both moderns and older coins in the group, rather than split the submission (moderns to PCGS classics to NGC) the whole batch would just be sent to PCGS.
     
  18. wxcoin

    wxcoin Getting no respect since I was a baby

    That's pretty shocking to me to say the least.
     
    Kentucky likes this.
  19. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    Besides competent grading, attribution is another skill seen lacking in several of the TPGs in my opinion.

    PCGS guarantees their attributions while I know both NGC and ANACS do not (they will reholder the coin if you send it back with the proper attribution at no cost but that doesn't cover a rare variety attribution error, and I own one- they just stated mechanical error on the on-line cert and removed the images).

    "Details" examples can be the hardest to properly authenticate and offer the biggest opportunity for the current counterfeiters who are getting better all of the time. I have suggested to a couple of my contacts in the top tier TPGs they stop doing details coins but that is a huge downside due to the volume and potential $'s lost, but you need to have the skills on staff and the time to do it properly as stated in the OP's post. And some of us have seen the severely corroded/ artificially weathered Gallery Mint example that slipped into a TPG holder...

    Dealing in early copper as a focus but some early silver I don't know how anyone properly "authenticates" a coin without attributing it 1st- always my 1st step when researching a suspect example. And that takes proper time and knowledge! And I have images of a deceptive fake 1798 large cent that was holdered as genuine by a TPG who actually identified the source coin variety (and listed on the label) but the coin was severely tooled and modified such that the "die state" was incorrect for the variety- something only an expert would have caught but they then slabbed several more in the same state and with major repeating marks.

    At least all 4 have guarantees of authenticity.
     
    thomas mozzillo and Insider like this.
  20. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    View attachment 1141270

    This is not good at all. First, the coin was under graded - probably a stupid attempt at net grading for the corroded surface. Then the coin was overgraded and still no indication of a "details" grade. Perhaps a more important submitter?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page