New grading system? MS64.5?

I think it would be a good idea to add a decimal to the coin grading scale, because there can be a huge margin between one MS64, and another MS64...one could be a very borderline grade say a 65.0, and another could be a 65.9. A huge difference! One is basically an MS64, and the other basically MS66. I am aware of a CAC sticker, but first it is not accurate (64.5-64.9=CAC) second you shouldn't have to pay twice for one coin to be graded.
Anyway you guys get what I'm saying, what do you think??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I also think there should be more grades.
especially between XF45 and AU50...

 

Xf46.0,xf47.0,xf48.0,xf49.0

 

Goldstone, it will happen. There is another thread where someone mentions that PCGS and NGC will probably do something to combat this CAC sticker business.

It's been done by PCGS's sister company in sports card grading. In that area, cards were originally graded from 1 to 10 in 1 step increments - so it was PSA 1, PSA 2, etc.

NOW, there is PSA 7.5, PSA 8.5, etc.

So don't be surprised if the .5 grading scale shows up at a dealer near you!

MAGMAN - good point. In many of the modern series like Mercs and Walkers, the there is a HUGE, HUGE difference between XF and AU. Interesting point.

Might I suggest that Mr. Magman start a thread about that. I'll throw in my 1/2 cents worth, but I can't recall a thread about XF vs. AU. Good idea there!

 

Instead we could add a letter to the grade like 64A, 64B, 64C and etc - that way instead of 700 grading steps you get 1820.

 

I don't see why we need anything other than what we have. So instead of complaining that tpgs overgraded a 64, now it will be 64.5's. I can look at three 64's and decide which one I like best and has the eye appeal I am looking for. So why complicate things anymore? I see no benefit to me as a collector. I can see it now - a dealer will have a PCGS 64.0, NGC 64.5, PCGS 64.9. All three would look the same to the average collector - when the PCGS 64.0 is actually the better coin. Now if I was PCGS or NGC I would do it - why - because now all the crack people when send the same coins in again. More money in their pocket.

 

We can hardly reach a consensus with the grades we have today, so adding yet another significant digit to the grade would not do much for consistency's sake. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that the OP is suggesting here.

 

The Sheldon scale is just like the english scale of measurement, it just doesn't really make sense. I'd rather see the entire system tossed into the garbage dump in favor of a more "metric" scale of 0 - 100.

 

Fair enough.

Now let's ponder the next step... how does one arrive at fair market value (FMV) for a coin graded XF48.3 ?

With many coins, especially earlier Federal period coins, it's difficult enough to get enough "price points" as it is.

For instance, let's say you're considering an 1802 50c O-101 in XF45. I can search auction records and get some data points and make a call. But more is better and there aren't very many, so it's tricky to get FMV.

It gets a lot tougher when you split hairs down to 48.3 . The number of data points (i.e. exact match) drops, so now I'm back to looking at coins from XF45 to XF50 and interpolating. So where is the value of the 48.3 precision ?

Just a thought.

 

IMHO fractional grading will never happen now that we've accepted the TPGs because it would mean they'd have to look at the coins that much longer and harder and that would only increase their costs while reducing the volume they could accurately grade each year.

 

What I was really saying is this point, there is a huge difference between a borderline MS64 (on the MS63 end), and another MS64 (on close to the MS65 end). There really should be a middle ground because up in those higher grades MS60-MS70 the one point makes such a large difference, between hundreds, and thousands. I'm not saying we need to have an AG03.5, but on the higher grades there should at least be one more significant figure. Even if its a .5, or 0. (0 being lower end of that grade) (.5 meaning higher end of that grade) I think this is worthwhile!!!

 

I'm not sure I agree, I would rather reserve the decimals for level of PQ or eye appeal.

 

Hm....kind of the the * on the toned NGC slabs?

 

Yep but I often wonder about that "*" as some are borderline attractive vs. others that are just above and beyond with booming luster etc...

I guess it would be *.1 for an attracitve coin but nothing special and definitely not a dog. *.5 for a very attractive coin and *.9 for a coin that should never leave a collection because it is so darned attractive.

 

So why stopping at one decimal place? Cool - I could start a PI collection!! Lets see the slab it comes in.

 

I agree on decimal grading (to the half) for coins that are really low, or really high (AG3.5, MS64.5).

But I also think we need the full 70 points.
As I said, distinguishing between XF45 and AU50 can be pretty dang hard. Sometimes it feels like it should be XF47.

 

We already hav CAC green and gold . But if you're spending a lot of money on a coin , you shoul research the coins that you want , pretty soon you'll be able to tell high middle and low . As others said the tpgs wouldhave tospend more time and then pass the grading fee to us .
rzage

 

We can hardly reach a consensus with the grades we have today, so adding yet another significant digit to the grade would not do much for consistency's sake. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that the OP is suggesting here.


I agree. Hey, why not 64.227 versus simply 64.2?

 

I agree entirely.

Let's start with the fact that there's no "agreed upon" grading standards.
So Step 1 would be to get the major players to come up with that.
I figure at least 10 years, maybe 20, to pull that together IF IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE.
Then comes the fact that grading contains a substantial subjective component.
Different people are going to view toning, dents, dings, scratches, rubs, marks, etc. differently with regard to the overall effect on a coin's grade.

Consider a fingerprint.
How do you quantify something like that?
- Percentage of a coin's surfaces that are affected?
PLUS
- Amount of damage done?
PLUS
- Location of fingerprint?
PLUS
- Darkness of fingerprint?


I repeat.
I agree with Leadfoot's thinking.

 

And that's of course not even the tip of the iceberg. Apply the same questions to such things as carbon spots, contact marks, luster grazes, toning, etc., etc, etc. Or, simply consider this. Is there anybody here who seriously believes we collectively could rate something as subjective as "eye appeal" to decimal-point accuracy? Because, consider it, in the end, that's what it would come down to.

Personally, FWIW, I still use a rough +/- system, as the case may be, if I'm not too solid on the grade. But, that's as far as I go.