Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Insider, post: 2648210, member: 24314"]RonSanderson, posted: "...starting with the Sheldon system itself. And I think it is the problem." You don't do yourself justice.  IMO, this post elevates your understanding of coin grading well above 70% of collectors. "...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?" IMO, the Sheldon numbers and their description work very well for circulated grades.  Combine that with the photos in the different grading guides and grading seems to be fairly consistent (forget "Net" grading) and easy to understand.  That's because grading circulated coins is mainly based on wear (loss of detail).  So the problem of combining many factors into a grade is not as important as for Mint State coins.  Nevertheless, eye appeal is important here too. It changes for Mint State coins.  At the first TPGS, a technical system was used specifically to separate all the components of grading and remove subjectivity.  Sorry, I don't have time to get into this as it is covered in some grading seminars.  Only thing important is this grading system clashed with the "commercial" grading in the marketplace.  Now, technical grading is only useful to teach grading to new collectors who learn about marks, luster, etc. "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" You are absolutely correct.  The strike of a coin should have absolutely no bearing on its Mint State (condition as it left the die) - technical grading.  However, in the real world that is not the case.  Additionally, a fully struck coin with a single ding is still a fully struck coin.  Unfortunately, the "clowns" of commercial grading and Jefferson nickel experts made the rules.  Same goes for the bands and bell lines on other types. "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?" IMO, [USER=17261]@BadThad[/USER] is giving you an important lesson in grading.   Coins can have different grades depending on the experience, eyesight, knowledge, magnification, ownership, etc. of the grader.  That's why grading is "subjective."  If a person cannot tell if a coin is whizzed - for him it is a 100% BU "gem." "For collectors, I think a different grading entirely makes sense. Sure, this is complex, but let'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's all about the mental weight and formula that each of us values. Let's say we graded each of these on a 1-50 scale, independently. In no particular order.<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 flaw</li> </ul> And you all may have your own." Been done long ago (1970's) and rejected. "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?" You are not going to like this answer...EXPERIENCE.  You can learn to do that.  However, what you cannot learn easily is when you also must factor the commercial value into the coin's condition of preservation (grade). [/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches