Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 492916, member: 307&quot;]I am proposing that you think about coin grading based on this:</p><p><br /></p><p>If we were to look at what a coin is SUPPOSED to look like when it is struck. Fully struck details, blemish free beauty. Not based on what coins were struck for that particular year, but on the actual model that the hub came from. How close is this design to what it should have been? You are correct, that there are many steps in the process of making a coin that determine it&#039;s strike characteristics, but if we concentrate on what it IDEALLY would strike as and make that the top of our scale, and make the bottom a completely flat from wear former coin, we can compare coins more emperically, and possibly agree on grading, but have a more uniform standard across series.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reason I say by hub is that as hubs are changed, design details change. the Lincoln Cent series is an excellent example. Over the years, the design has become flatter and flatter. There is very little depth to the design now as compared to the 1909. I want us to use computer technology to determine a composite &quot;perfect die state&quot; as can be seen by comparing the best struck examples and compositing them into a master die state and this will be the standard against which that run of dates will be judged. </p><p><br /></p><p>The depth of strike in contrast to the intended design will determine it&#039;s grade. I want to be <b>VERY</b> clear about something, so here it is on bold print:</p><p><br /></p><p><b>IN NO WAY DOES ANY PART OF THIS SYSTEM SUGGEST VALUE!!!! IT IS A GRADING SYSTEM FOR TECHNICAL GRADE! What a coin is worth is a function of what the market will pay for it, and part of how the market determines value is purely a function of the market!!! A coin&#039;s grade is it&#039;s grade, and has NOTHING to do with it&#039;s value, it is value that is generally driven by grade.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>I think that this explains my (if not many other&#039;s) problem with Market Grading. That said this is NOT a discussion of Market vs Technical grading. I want to be clear! This is an idea of something new and something different. Don&#039;t start with ANY assumptions, and let&#039;s look at it a differnt way entirely.</p><p><br /></p><p>We will examine grade by comparing the strike of the coin vs. the intended. A much more&nbsp; empirical analysis. factors like luster and eye appeal are not used as they are subjective and will mostly determine the coins salability and therefore are market factors. In this more empirical way, you will be able to compare across the series as to strike, if a coin is an MS-63 and you put it in a set of MS-63s, they will all look mostly alike. This also means that in all likelyhood there are no coins in any series that grade MS-70, and the numbers above MS-65 are much less than the TPGs would suggest. Well, honestly... did any of you think that this wasn&#039;t true now???</p><p><br /></p><p>Many may point to specific examples that might make this type of grading a challenge. These would definately include coins like the 1922 No D Lincoln Cent. So as an example, let&#039;s discuss that coin. The depth of strike on the obverse of this coin is mushy on even the best examples, so do we just grade them all VG? Well, no, of course not. This is a coin that typically is better graded by its reverse. It is also a coin that is well known as being an exeption to most grading rules. Why not describe the grade of a 22 No D as MS-63 Red reverse? I think that in that particular case it works, and is comprehendable.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think where people have always had a problem with the current grading system is with coins like the 1926-S Buffaloes. Full horn, no full horn, how do you grade them? Maybe the buffalo series is one that is best described a different way. Maybe XF-45 85% Horn detail would be better. </p><p><br /></p><p>All I am suggesting is a change in the way that we THINK about grading. I don&#039;t want to call the experts wrong, I want to further develop the system of grading because most agree that it doesn&#039;t work very well. It&#039;s inconsistent, it&#039;s difficult to learn, and at times it&#039;s antiquated. Man has used technology to further his existence with many inventions. every one of those came from someone who dared to think about something that couldn&#039;t be done, or was just a certain way and that&#039;s all there is to it, and they thought about it in a different way. A way that noone had before. I am not smart enough to do it on my own, but I thought that with all of our combined expertise, we could try to think differently. I thought that we could be the innovators instead of waiting for innovation to come to us.</p><p><br /></p><p>My father always used to tell me things like &#039;that&#039;s just the way it is&quot;, and that&#039;s probably why I rail against it so violently, Doug. He used to tell me the same things over and over and I would ponder them, and try to understand. The problem is that as I began to think for myself, and ask him intellegent questions that challenged his beliefs, he said that he was tired of trying to explain it. I valued his opinions very much as I value your expertise, but unfortunately, he never really saw it that way and we never got to really get into much meaningful discssion man to man.[/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