Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 2648073, member: 77413&quot;]This does seem to be the time and place to smack the hornet nest with a stick.</p><p><br /></p><p>As a somewhat new guy, I learn more about grading with every coin and every conversation I have here. Every day I feel I am worse, not better. But as a new guy, I also am spared an attachment to any existing system of grading. I don&#039;t have a horse in any race, starting with the Sheldon system itself. And I think it is the problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is the swatting. This system reduces a very complex interplay of factors to a simple linear scale. The CAC approval takes the same complex set of factors and mentally reduces it again to the same scale. Mentally, are the same factors perceived, weighted, and recomputed the same?</p><p><br /></p><p>I take to heart some recent comments. You may recognize them as yours. I have been thinking and rethinking them.</p><p><br /></p><p>After posting a Jefferson, there were comments about losing FS because of one ding. Yet, the general strike, including the windows on Monticello, were far above average for FS coins I looked at. So is FS meant to refer to strike quality? If so, what would it matter to that quality that the coin has a ding? That is a separate issue.</p><p><br /></p><p>I posted a Lincoln that I (subjectively) think is terrific. [USER=17261]@BadThad[/USER] <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/post-your-lincolns.192928/page-216#post-2646181" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/post-your-lincolns.192928/page-216#post-2646181">called it an AU-63</a>. That certainly has me thinking. A trace of wear that is unnoticeable to me makes it AU, but everything else makes it 63. Why should one predominate?</p><p><br /></p><p>For collectors, I think a different grading entirely makes sense. Sure, this is complex, but let&#039;s think about how many independent factors are lumped into one simple numeric result. There are enough of them that it is easy to see why the same coin could be graded within two numeric steps. It&#039;s all about the mental weight and formula that each of us values.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s say we graded each of these on a 1-50 scale, independently. In no particular order.</p><ul> <li>For copper, color Brown through full red. A continuum, not BR, RB, RD.</li> <li>Strike - are all letters and high relief features filled out.</li> <li>Wear - on my cent, a wear of 48 for a touch on the cheekbone is something OK with me</li> <li>Luster</li> <li>Toning</li> <li>Dirt</li> <li>For copper, wood grain toning</li> <li>Die wear - so you can have a good strike but poor dies.</li> <li>Hits / contact marks (considering severity and location)</li> <li>Hairlines</li> <li>Strike / Planchet flaws</li> </ul><p><br /></p><p>And you all may have your own.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is, you cannot group this many things into a 1-70 scale and have the coin fully described. So how can people with different values hope to agree on a grade, or even like the same coin in the same way, regardless of grade?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in