Enough arguing! A Different Look at Grading

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess what I don't understand with this whole thread is why it needs to change? No matter what system you come up with the buyer will still decide the final grade and the price they are willing to pay. So the seller(or the tpg) can call the coin anything he wants - as a buyer I set my grade and the price I will pay. Why not make it really simple - all coins are genuine or fake then the buyers determine the price? Why even have a grade? We might as well take out varieties as well - make everything equal. If you are trying to get to a buy sight unseen type system - it won't work. Nobody but me gets to determine what I consider a choice coin. Me - I will stick with ANA grading guides. Yes - my interpretation of it, not perfect but it makes me happy. This is the best comparison I can think of - Paul likes toned coins - great for Paul, but a few of them are way over the top for me. Personally I would not have put them in a PCGS or NGC holder - cleaned or AT. But that is only my opinion and it does not make it fact. Even if you proved to me the coins are NT I still would not purchase a few of them. That is an opinion that can not be built into any grading system you come up with. I still would not buy some of them. That is my opinion and my choice.

I mean, we the collectors can't get SGS shutdown, the pocket change MS70's graders - even with a new system they can continue to say "we use ANA standards" these coins are MS70. Then as long as people buy them they are doing nothing wrong. But then when they go to sell them - we the buyers - will demonstrate by the price we pay the mistake they made in buying SGS coins. So what? All we can do is try to educate someone?

I just can't see what the problem is - I mean Doug is allowed his opinion, Paul, Mike(s), Frank(s) and even me. We do not need to agree on a grade eye appeal, cleaning, price or worth of a coin. As potential buyers each of us determine what we will pay. And yes - I may argue with doug or someone else, but we can always agree to disagree. Simple as that. I think sometimes people read too much into a posts tone.

Maybe someday computers can do some technical grading, but they will never replace my eye. Like others I make my living in the industry and I do not think anywhere down the line will computers have a final say in this hobby - human collectors will. You can not convince me otherwise or even convince me to use open source for business critical needs. That should stir up a hornets nest in general discussion if someone started a thread on it(that is if you made it this far). I can not see someone developing a "technology based grading system" that everyone would agree to use. You will still have the SGS's of the world doing there own thing.

All of that to say - "I can live with the way things are now". I still like the discussion.

 

there are facts and there is trick photography

 

hey i got an idea. now you and me agree that a 2008 P and a 2008 D cent are not the same. but what about the different dies ( die replacement) used in 2008 P in theory those should not be the same either. we recognize this when something silly happens like 1955 doubling 1922 no D etc but what about in other cases. i am studying some coins right now where there are 3 bangles but due to die wear they come together and become a bracelet which fundamentally alters the design. so what are your 2 cents

 

This is part of the problem Doug. we're not talking about judging Morgans by the average strike. In fact, that whole bell curve way of thinking is part of the problem as Lehigh has pointed out.

We're talking about judging Morgans based on the best strike. Using composites was my idea, I am sure there are others, but the idea is to determine what the OPTIMAL strike for a Morgan dollar would be and compare all dollars to THAT. There won't be any flood of high-end coins, in fact there will likely be an adjustment downward in grades for many coins. If San Francisco (as an example, not a statement) coins are notoriously weakly struck, then so be it, no MS-65s at all! I can live with that! All coins from all mints equally judged.

 

I am sorry if I lost my temper. It should never get personal. I sometimes speak out of turn and I should keep my opinions to myself.

 

A composite is a "total" expressed as a sum of many parts not necessarily belonging to the same coin. You take the best strike for breast feathers, the best strike for talons and arrows, every part is judged against the best strike of any coin in the series.

No MS-70s under my new system, because perfect means perfect as intended. MS-63 would probably have millions of coins, though.

 

well what about my brilliant idea then? any opinions on that anyone?

 

Doug,

You absolutely can compare a Cadillac to a Chevy. The Caddy is better which explains why it costs more money. Regarding coins from different years and mints, IMO, they are equal. They have the same design and should all look the same. They only look different because one mint did a better job producing the coins than the other. You call it apples to oranges (or other apples), I call it accountability. I can look at a Peace Dollar and make in independent judgment on the quality of the strike regardless of the mint or date.

I respect your opinion Doug, but in this case you are making this much more difficult than it really is. What I am saying is simply compare all of the strikes from every date and mint to determine what the weak, average, and good strikes look like for the series. If a particular date and mint produced weak strike coins, the grades of those coins would be correctly limited to the lower MS grades. It really is not that far of a stretch. In fact, if they graded that way in the beginning, you would find people who would vehemently oppose grading strike independently for each year and mint.

Furthermore, just because the so called experts think this is the best way to grade strike does not mean that they are correct. Everyone with an opinion should have the opportunity to have there opinion heard and actually considered before being summarily dismissed.

We completely understand that you disagree with us on this issue, but by no means does that make you (or us) right.

 

oh, and by the way... I do understand what the laundry list of authors you mentioned say. You judge each coin by it's date and mint. You look at a coin and say, "well for an 1893-CC, it's a really great strike, even though it's not sharply struck. For what it is, it's a gem." I get that whole idea, it is very specific to each coin.

I was talking about thinking of coins across a series instead, and the inplications or grading it as such. If you want to point out the pitfalls, then go ahead, but I'd rather for the purposes of our discussion that you do that rather thantell me that that's not the way it is. I know the way it is, and I am trying to think in a different way.

 

I guess it would depend on what coin has the best strike. I was saying that I don't think that ANY coin grades MS-70, and I think that you agree.

 

spock, we're talking hubs, not dies

die degradation = lesser grade