Enough arguing! A Different Look at Grading

I merely suggested that computers may be better than humans at certain chores. I still stand by that statement.

Doug, you go ahead and use the broken down antiquated system that we have in place. I am sure that there are still factories that make buggy whips too, and darned fine ones. I will look to the future and try to create a better vision for grading. In the interim, I still have to deal in the same market as the rest of you, so just to let you know, it's not that I have changed how I currently do things, I am trying to find what's next and contribute in any way that I can to help develop something better.

This thread was to discuss possibilities. The "what ifs", the how can we make it better. I understand some people can't accept new ideas, that's been human nature since the dawn of man. No one says that the grading system we have is perfect, in fact, most agree that it is flawed. I wanted to try to create a system where it wasn't. My mistake was thinking that we could imagine something better here in a discussion forum. We're not re-inventing the wheel, folks, we just want to try to collaborate and find something better. It's a shame that most of you that answered had only negative things to say instead of constructive comments.

The world is changing whether you like it or not and whether or not you're ready for it. If you don't try to keep up, it will pass you by.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

nor are you willing to contribute something to it that might make it so...

 

my Mom always used to say that if you have nothing to contribute, say something nice or say nothing at all.

You could try that...

 

Interesting discussion. Computers not only are getting faster, they also improve with the accuracy and effectivity in handling inputs and outputs. In my mind, this is a big part in what makes them "smarter". I encounter this a lot as an avionics engineer.

I could see computers helping with the grading of the coins if applied right. At the same time, I think it would be a mistake to completely rely on a computer for the grade. Human input is necessary too. Where I see computers helping the most is by detecting problems that may easily be missed by a guy and a 5x loupe. This might be done by analyzing the structure down to the microscopic detail. It could detect the quantity and location of any harmful oxidation levels, and look for the trends commonly found on cleaned coins. There are times when I have examined my coins under a 30x loupe, and have detected problems only after I have photographed it in high res. You guys may nail me for saying this, but I have encountered a fair amount of problem coins residing in NGC or PCGS slabs. I purchased a XF-45 1909-s vdb in an NGC holder at one point that I ended up sending back to the seller because of corrosion. I'd still want an expert to look at the coin personally and make sure things add up; but I think computers can provide a great bit of assistance.

As far as creating a new grading standard, I'm not too sure about that one; but I think things can be improved in the coin market a LOT with the aid of technology if used correctly.

 

this whole discussion makes me sick in the stomach. some of you dont even realize how fortunate you are to be able to have a discussion like this. its a gift guys and trust me a very few fortunate people get to enjoy coins and the us coin system for all its flaws and misgivings is still by the collectors for the collectors and of the collectors

 

PERSONAL IDEAS AND OPINIONS - NO FLAMING REQUIRED​

This is a rough explanation, with details to be determined and added and changed as necessary.

There should be no "technical" or "market" grading - just a single grade, except as described below.

There should be two classes of coins - Uncirculated and Circulated. Proofs are described below.

The 70 point system can be retained with these range definitions:

• 60-70 - UNC
• 52-59 - AU
• 44-51 - EF (XF)
• 36-43 - VF
• 28-35 - F
• 20-27 - VG
• 12-19 - G
• 4-11 - AG
• 0-03 - Poor

Ten points have been assigned for UNC; eight points each for every other grade range except the four point Poor. The top of each circulated grade (59, 51, 43, 35, 27, 19, 11 and 3 points) would be for a coin with no more that one or two defects in addition to wear. (The amount of wear acceptable for each grade is still to be determined.) Deductions of points would follow the guidelines shown under "ANY deviations..." below.

Grading should be separate for each side. Thus you can have a coin AU-53/58 if each side meets different AU standards; or even AU-53/EF-45 if the obverse is AU-53 and the reverse is EF-45.

ANY deviations from the ideal will result in the deduction of points.

• This would include scratches, scrapes, gouges, rim dings, etc.
• It would also include minting errors such as filled dies (such as the aforementioned 1922-No D Cent), weak strikes and any other defect, such as over polished dies, that results in the loss of intended detail.
• It should also include anything that detracts from the intended appearance of the coin, such as fingerprints, corrosion, toning, etc.
• Finally it would include wear in all classes except Uncirculated.
• Multiple "defects" accumulate points.

Proofs would be graded between 0 and 70 with UNC proofs being 60-70 and circulated proofs remaining PR, but being given a number based on the standards of the circulated grades.

As I stated above, these are my ideas and opinions. No response will be made to anyone telling me I or my ideas are wrong. I will gladly enter into a dialog with anyone who has logical comments, constructive criticism or who offers an alternative system.

 

how about a system so that honst people are not stolen from to begin with and are not harassed and treated as dirt. that would be a start i wonder if there is anyone out there who will take on the might of a corrupt and rogue system that just kiiled my dream

 

I have a class for that too - how to win and its free now

 

it reminds me the thread is wrong on many counts ( not only the OP but some posts as well)

here are my 2 cents in the interest of public education (please no questions i am in enough trouble already)

we have never landed on the moon and there is no air on the moon so flags dont fly and neither did the soviet union get a bumper harvest overnight

computers by nature cannot be dumb or smart. the programming is what makes it dumb or smart and we are writing better programs. can the coins of today be graded accurately by computers no. can the computers of tomorrow grade coins yes. they will be able to grade humans and not only coins and i am not trying to make a statement.

people who are arguing about the grading methods need to realize that in 99% of the planet such grading will be a quantum leap over what they have. Can the method be improved today? Fat chance there are too many people opposed to it with their wallets what will make it change technology ( process or product or both) incremental innovation wont cut it.

Thats all folks I believe i have become a bigger outsider than even GD now. No interest in coins whatsoever just want to help others achieve their goals my collections will either be completed very easily or i wont be able to add another coint o my collection ever. it sucks when money is not an object.

 

WoW spock1k

 

My mom said the same thing--but she also would say that if you know something is wrong, or is based on flawed logic, then speak up so others don't get tricked.

Speedy

 

if you won't accept scientific facts, then there's no convincing you, spock.

Speedy, my comment to Doug was this: Don't just sit there and say it doesn't work. Either offer something constructive, or let the fools and dreamers babble until they reach their own conclusion. If it can't be done, then it will eventually work it's way to that.

My problem is Doug's constant overbearing and know-it-all attitude. He often criticizes and says something doesn't work. He is very simple and matter-of-fact about it. When pressed for facts, he simply says, "that's the way it is", but he presses others to explain their thoughts completely. Then he picks those thought apart.

Very few added something to the thread in the short time it ran mostly because of the constant "that's not how things work" undercurrent within the discussion.

I have been here for years. I have added content that I think is thoughtful and worthwhile. I have added my 2¢ when I think it's warranted, or when I think I have expertise to share. Doug will tell me about produce and computers, meanwhile I work for one of the biggest grocers in the US and Canada in their produce warehouse and continue to run my local computer repair business and work in a coin shop. I have many interests, and I have studied them for years. I am a very hard working man, and I am not a young one, either. I have seen a lot in my years, and I have listened even more.

I like to take a different tac on certain things. Maybe look at something from an uncommon angle. I think most innovation comes from there, as the obvious thoughts are usually already tried by the time I got to thinking about it. If I ask about something that seems kinda off in the distance, maybe it's to just get a different angle on things, and maybe it has NO chance of working, but the thought process is NEVER not worth it.

 

Forget if you believe it can or cannot be done and just think like the technology exists and this is how the technology could be used to improve the current process. People should stop debating one way or the other and just think out of the box on what data they would capture and analyze. FYI - current non contact 3D Measurment systems can be as accurate as .015mm and image acquisition is in the microseconds. If you own a set of digital calipers set them to .015mm and see how small that is. If people approach this with an open mind I think everyone benifts regardless if its possible or not. The less experienced get a lesson on what aspects specifically a person in the hobby at any level shoud be aware of.

 

Mike--I think you are missing a few things. First of all, there has been people trying to change the grading system for years. It isn't something new, and people have been working on it tryig to reach their own conclusion for years. It keeps going back to the market to decide, and if you really look at what you are talking about, I would agree with CaveTroll, that it looks alot like market grading with another name.

That is how facts work. I've asked Doug many times why, or about something he will say. If he doesn't have facts to back him up then he leaves the question for someone with the knowledge. What I like about Doug is that very fact. He researches something untill he learns how and why it works. Then if someone comes up with something different he will press for facts to learn how and why it might be differnet.
What people get mad at is when he asks for more details and when it comes right down to it...they don't have any. They are just blowing steam, so to speak.

I'll be the first to say that the grading system has problems...but the problem is where you have everyone useing different sets of of standards. IF we, the collectors, would band together and use ONE standard, then I think you would see a great turning around in todays market.
But while you have Joe useing PCGS's and Ben useings NGC, and Mike likes the ANA, and Bill uses Photograde....then you will keep having problem.

Speedy

 

my point is that he would make a horrible theoretical physics student. You have to operate on assumptions that ANYTHING could be possible, not known fact.

If you continue to look at things from the same, staid viewpoint, you will only get the same answers. I like the exercise of stepping out of the box to think, especially when I have a problem with the way things are. It doesn't even matter if it's productive, it's just an exercise.

My system Market grading??? I think not... more like technical grading, becaue I proposed leaving out the subjective and using computers for what they do best, evaluating data.

Many attempts at manned flight were made before the Wright Brothers, and many of them were out and out ridiculous. But thinkers perservered while the current minds of the day said "it's just not possible, man isn't meant to fly". True innovation comes from trial and MANY errors. Some sensible, some ridiculous, I just wanted the theoretical discussion to take place, and got mad when someone tried to stifle the creative process.

I have told Doug on many occasions that I think he has a fantastic numismatic mind, but he's not the only one on the planet, and you don't know most of these people outside of their avatars.

 

BTW, speedy... we as collectors will band together behind one system when that system makes sense, is consistent, and is possible for the layman (or someone close) to learn.

 

For the record Doug, I wasn't ragging on you, I just don't understand why coins from different mints and years can't be compared with each other.

And as I recall, that question was never really answered IMO. I am a result oriented person. I don't care if the mint used a lower striking pressure or different die spacing. I care about the end result of the quality of coins they produced. If they use a striking pressure too low in Denver and the coins are not as well struck as they are in Philly, then guess what, they should get lower graded coins for not performing to the same quality level as Philly. Why should we give them a pass by saying, they were all poorly struck and we shall apply a bell curve so that we can have a crappy weak strike MS66.

I am not advocating a whole new grading system, just stricter application of the present one.