NGCX a new 10 point grading scale from NGC

Xxx

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What rocket would that be that crashed into Mars? Did you mean an orbiter satellite that burned up in that atmosphere more than 30 miles up over 20 years ago? Theres a big difference, it also wasn’t because people forgot how to convert units.

 

I am oversimplifying, to make a joke. But yes, that's what I mean. And it was precisely because one team was using metric and the other wasn't and somebody forgot to convert: https://www.cse.psu.edu/~gxt29/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter.html

 

I'm not sure I'm up for learning a new system. New folks to the hobby are going to have a tough time understand it all. I don't see anything good coming from this.

 

Why would I want an entombed coin to say MS10 when I could have it say MS70? Numerically, 10 for coin collecting is very low (VG-10). Sorry, but that's not my idea of a good idea, especially since many coin collectors are engrained in understanding the Sheldon scale and ok with using it, as it describes wear.

Seems to me 1) this NGC thing describes not wear but 'imperfections' (which of course the MS 60-70 scale does also, since there is no "wear" on an uncirculated coin) and is some sort of marketing idea that some body decided was soooooooooooooooo good because they need a new 'thing' to entice collectors to want the slab value more than the coin value (sort of like the labels they did just to get people to want to have things...first, signed, blah blah blah). And 2) this will possibly be a play to have people buy these for neatness and then when the idea fails, send the coin in again to be reholdered in a MS70 (or 69, whatever) slab. Could be wrong, but I see failure on their part, especially if numismatists and coin clubs actually educate their new numismatists that having another separate scale for cuteness isn't how the hobby works.

 

You really only think that way because that's the way you've always thought, and the way you've been taught.

Think about it like this - a 10 in the Olympics is a perfect score. It is very high. That seems perfectly normal to you, doesn't it?

 

My 2c...

There is nothing new under the sun. For example, the "A-C" approach to grading that is used by CAC and that will probably continue when CACG opens its doors was first published in a 1946 Numismatic Scrapbook article by Otto Oddehon. Obvioysky it did not gain favor, possibly because grading was much simpler back then. I suspect that a some researcher could find a proposed 1-10 system also in our past.

 

physics-fan3.14, posted: "And that's fair. Eye appeal is absolutely subjective. 100%. In some grading scheme, you might even just rank that as "color" from "white" to "rainbow." However, I don't really like that because not all "rainbows" are created equally on coins. That's why having expert graders judging eye appeal, with examples and references to know what is considered "desirable" and what isn't, is important.

However... lets be honest. Eye appeal is currently a very important part of the market grading scale. Currently, it is hidden. Currently, a coin could be adjusted one, two, or (rarely) even more points up or down based solely on good or bad eye appeal.

Do you think that we could at least attempt a better scale by breaking that out and honestly calling the score (adjustment?) based on the eye appeal? I do.

AMEN! The "eye appeal scam" is a way to "justify" a coin's price (as it deserves to); however, it introduces more subjectivity into grading. As long as a coin's ACTUAL condition of preservation is connected to its value and eye appeal there will ALWAYS be more disagreements with its ACTUAL grade.

 

Maybe or maybe not. In figure skating, a 6.0 is the perfect score. Even in the Olympics. So just because the Olympics (in place since 1896) is 10.0 doesn't mean that is the metric one applies.

 

There's an inherent logic in a 10-point (or 100-point) scale that makes it appealing.

It would be easy to go all "bah humbug, get off my lawn" on this subject, but I think it's an idea that deserves discussion, and NGC's decision helps move that ball down the field.

 

I have never had a problem understanding the 70-point scale. 70 is El Perfecto, as compared with 100 or even 10. I simply don’t see it as a big deal, a problem or anything else.

Besides, picture these threads: “NGC graded my coin 9.5. Look at this other coin. It should be 9.6!”

Good grief.

 

While space is always going to have failures, there’s no getting around the fact that NASA was very sloppy during that time period and had more failures than just that. It’s a lot easier to blame measurement systems than admit a culture of sloppy or rushed work that skips checks.

 

Agreed.

There’s just simply no reason to change the numbers. Changing numbers does nothing than provide a gimmicky new system that doesn’t fix or even improve any actual issues with a system.

It just simply doesn’t matter how cards/comics are graded. Should we switch everything to the meat grading scale because more people eat meat? Sports aren’t scored the same, Olympic events have different perfect scores etc. It’s a weak gimmicky argument that it should be the same.

It does make me laugh though the idea of a business model of hey let’s alienate and chase away the majority/vast majority because it could get a few new people lol.

 

Can we agree that that particular failure wouldn't have happened without both root causes (use of incompatible measurement systems and systemic sloppiness)?

 

We simply dont know what else actually went wrong and they will never tell it. The other failures and the culture of ignoring risks that ultimate lot a space shuttle not that long after would point to that it could have happened anyways. There was an easy scapegoat to blame for it and they took it.

If anything JPL should have been using US measurements for calculations, but again if the "smartest people" on the planet who are trying to send something to Mars cannot figure out a simple way to confirm and show conversions than that is nothing more than a systematic failure of sloppiness

 

We should all strive for this.

 

lol dayum unprepared for work was he... its a waste...

 

It seems like many folks are still thinking this is a different grading method. It's not. It's the same wear-based grading scale we have now, it's only the number reported that changes. Each step up in the grading scale 1-70 is still a step up in the grading scale 1.0-10.0.

Not that I'm advocating for this new methodology, but some of the arguments I'm reading here against it just don't hold water. Fundamentally everyone understands a 10 point scale where there is a "perfect 10". We have 10 fingers. This concept is more ingrained into our culture than a 70 point scale is.

And some of these arguments read like how can 70 be perfect when we all know a 70 is a C on the 100 point grading scale? Something everyone knows from school. Where also are the complaints that the steps in the Sheldon scale skip over tons of grades that aren't actually used. Where are the 21s, 22s, 23s, and 24s for example? Where are the 56s, 57s, and 59s? What's the point of skipping over numbers when they aren't actually used for anything? Well that's what this scale does.

Instead of going AU 50, AU 53, AU 55, AU 58 it goes AU 8.0, AU 8.3, AU 8.5, AU 8.8. It's the same grade steps, they've just eliminated all the unused numbers and added decimals. So before think of AU as being 50 + 0, 3, 5, or 8. Now it's 8 + 0.0, 0.3, 0.5, or 0.8. MS 70 is now 10. MS 60 is now 9.0 and the MS steps are each 0.1 points instead of 1 point. They haven't changed grading at all they have just repackaged it.

 

Well, I finally got myself an NGCX, it was a part of a 12 coin lot I got for $6 per coin. Over a year later, and they still haven't figured out how to let these coins in the NGC Registry, just pathetic.