Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Has Grading Gone to Far?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Insider, post: 4503607, member: 24314"]<b><i><font size="5"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51)">Unfortunately, this thread is going to take more time to unravel than I thought!</span></font></i></b></p><p><b><i><br /></i></b></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51)">I'll add my <b>OPINIONS </b>as fast as I can. Take 'em or leave 'em. My opinions are based on the ORIGINAL, "true" Technical Grading system that I personally devised for the internal records of the ANA's authentication service in Washington, DC <b>ONLY</b> for the purpose to identify coins. It was later used at the <b>FIRST TP GRADING & AUTHENTICATION SERVICE</b> - INSAB. </span></i></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Publius2, posted: "The existing system and all proposed systems are completely arbitrary. <b><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[100% CORRECT]</span></b> You might just as well call them "Tutti Frutti" (in honor of James Brown) or 5 x 10^6 so I see no value to me and most of the collecting community in abandoning the existing Sheldon system and disrupting everything. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"> [I agree.]</span></p><p><br /></p><p>Two points:</p><p><br /></p><p>1. All technical grading is partially subjective. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"> [ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. This statement indicates ignorance of the Technical Grading System THAT NOBODY HAS PRACTICED FOR DECADES no matter what they call their system!!! When the ANA began grading coins in CO they did not use the original Technical Grading that was practiced in their DC office because no one that knew the system moved to CO. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />]</span></p><p><br /></p><p>2. All aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability are completely subjective. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><b>[100% CORRECT]</b></span></p><p><br /></p><p>On technical grading: The TPGs were supposed to give us a consistent (insofar as possible) technical grade. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[Actually only ANACS in CO tried to use what <b>they CALLED</b> "Technical" Grading. PCGS and later NGC practiced COMMERCIAL grading right from the start. They were established by dealers because ANACS (So-called TG) & INSAB (True Technical Grading) were too strict! In the beginning. PCGS was strict. Soon it all went out the window until we have the mess we have today when MS means nothing in the lower grades.]</span> They have been partially successful at that, compared to the so-called standards that prevailed in an earlier age. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[LOL, Ok you said "partially"]</span> They have failed in two areas: 1) They have failed to maintain consistency of those standards over time, <b><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[AMEN and such a shame!]</span></b>;</p><p>2) They have allowed aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability to creep into their grading. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[Yes. They had to because pretty coins are worth more than ugly coins no matter what they are graded or their actual "technical (true) condition.]</span></p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, any system where money and passion combine is going to result in gamesmanship and all manner of shenanigans. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[You think?]</span> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie57" alt=":jawdrop:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>physics-fan3.14, posted: "Couple of points that I have to clear up here, Publius.</p><p><br /></p><p>The TPGS do not, have not, and will not ever practice technical grading. This is a common misconception. The TPGs have always practiced Market Grading. The Market Grade of a coin is an attempt to "value" the coin - its a ranking system where "this coin is more valuable than this other coin, and so it will get a higher number." This value may be based on technical aspects, such as strike and contact marks, but it is also heavily influenced by the subjective aspects such as eye appeal (toning, etc.). In reality, this is inherited from the fundamental basis of the Sheldon scale - a coin worth 70x the base price must be an MS-70! The idea of value as a means of rank/grade has been the basis for the grading system since before many of us were born.</p><p><br /></p><p>The TPGs MARKET grade coins, they don't TECHNICAL grade them.</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">Very well stated!</span></p><p><br /></p><p>A technical grading system is <b><font size="5">something like</font></b> the EAC grading scale. I'm not sure if you've ever looked into that, but <b>the EAC scale is a true technical grading scale.</b></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">Oh my, we just went off the tracks. The EAC grading system is the biggest bunch of stinky stuff imaginable! Technical grading assigns a grade by a coin's condition of preservation. It does not call an XF coin VF due to a problem!</span> </p><p><br /></p><p>Eye appeal is not a factor - surface preservation, marks, corrosion, etc are. <b>Technical grading actually reduces the subjectivity in grading a considerable amount </b><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[<b>BINGO!</b> That's what my original system did. Precise, repeatable grading without change due to time or market condition as long as the coin remained unchanged when seen again. The true technical system]:</span> Is there corrosion present? Deduct 5 points. Is there a mark on the cheek? Deduct 5 points. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[EXACTLY why EAC grading is wacky, subjective, stupid, folly because folks regard anything they see on a coin subjectively. The mark on the cheek - deduct 2 points, Corrosion? Deduct 10 points. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />]</span> Its a set formula based on technical factors - not a wishy washy scale based on how much I like the flash of the luster or the color on the coin. (the interpretation may vary slightly between graders, but it is far more consistent than market grading)</p><p><br /></p><p>This distinction is very important, and commonly misunderstood.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>*A TPG is <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">NOT</span> "grading" a coin. They ARE assigning it a Value.*</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><b>Additionally, an EAC member is <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">NOT</span> "grading" a coin.</b> They are assigning a value. I prefer the commercial graders at the TPGS. At least they call an EF coin EF and not VF due to problems. </span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">News flash folks: Modern day "detail" grading as practiced by the major TPGS's is actually the best example of the original Technical Grading System!</span></p><p><br /></p><p>In a market grading scheme, "aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability" (i.e., eye appeal) are central to the scheme. They haven't "crept" into the grading - its central to their mandate. <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">[100% Correct]</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">to be continued...<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie103" alt=":yack:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie103" alt=":yack:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie103" alt=":yack:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie103" alt=":yack:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie103" alt=":yack:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></span>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Insider, post: 4503607, member: 24314"][B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=rgb(102, 0, 51)]Unfortunately, this thread is going to take more time to unravel than I thought![/COLOR][/SIZE] [/I][/B] [I][COLOR=rgb(102, 0, 51)]I'll add my [B]OPINIONS [/B]as fast as I can. Take 'em or leave 'em. My opinions are based on the ORIGINAL, "true" Technical Grading system that I personally devised for the internal records of the ANA's authentication service in Washington, DC [B]ONLY[/B] for the purpose to identify coins. It was later used at the [B]FIRST TP GRADING & AUTHENTICATION SERVICE[/B] - INSAB. [/COLOR][/I] Publius2, posted: "The existing system and all proposed systems are completely arbitrary. [B][COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][100% CORRECT][/COLOR][/B] You might just as well call them "Tutti Frutti" (in honor of James Brown) or 5 x 10^6 so I see no value to me and most of the collecting community in abandoning the existing Sheldon system and disrupting everything. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)] [I agree.][/COLOR] Two points: 1. All technical grading is partially subjective. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)] [ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. This statement indicates ignorance of the Technical Grading System THAT NOBODY HAS PRACTICED FOR DECADES no matter what they call their system!!! When the ANA began grading coins in CO they did not use the original Technical Grading that was practiced in their DC office because no one that knew the system moved to CO. :(][/COLOR] 2. All aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability are completely subjective. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][B][100% CORRECT][/B][/COLOR] On technical grading: The TPGs were supposed to give us a consistent (insofar as possible) technical grade. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][Actually only ANACS in CO tried to use what [B]they CALLED[/B] "Technical" Grading. PCGS and later NGC practiced COMMERCIAL grading right from the start. They were established by dealers because ANACS (So-called TG) & INSAB (True Technical Grading) were too strict! In the beginning. PCGS was strict. Soon it all went out the window until we have the mess we have today when MS means nothing in the lower grades.][/COLOR] They have been partially successful at that, compared to the so-called standards that prevailed in an earlier age. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][LOL, Ok you said "partially"][/COLOR] They have failed in two areas: 1) They have failed to maintain consistency of those standards over time, [B][COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][AMEN and such a shame!][/COLOR][/B]; 2) They have allowed aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability to creep into their grading. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][Yes. They had to because pretty coins are worth more than ugly coins no matter what they are graded or their actual "technical (true) condition.][/COLOR] Of course, any system where money and passion combine is going to result in gamesmanship and all manner of shenanigans. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][You think?][/COLOR] :jawdrop::D physics-fan3.14, posted: "Couple of points that I have to clear up here, Publius. The TPGS do not, have not, and will not ever practice technical grading. This is a common misconception. The TPGs have always practiced Market Grading. The Market Grade of a coin is an attempt to "value" the coin - its a ranking system where "this coin is more valuable than this other coin, and so it will get a higher number." This value may be based on technical aspects, such as strike and contact marks, but it is also heavily influenced by the subjective aspects such as eye appeal (toning, etc.). In reality, this is inherited from the fundamental basis of the Sheldon scale - a coin worth 70x the base price must be an MS-70! The idea of value as a means of rank/grade has been the basis for the grading system since before many of us were born. The TPGs MARKET grade coins, they don't TECHNICAL grade them. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)]Very well stated![/COLOR] A technical grading system is [B][SIZE=5]something like[/SIZE][/B] the EAC grading scale. I'm not sure if you've ever looked into that, but [B]the EAC scale is a true technical grading scale.[/B] [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)]Oh my, we just went off the tracks. The EAC grading system is the biggest bunch of stinky stuff imaginable! Technical grading assigns a grade by a coin's condition of preservation. It does not call an XF coin VF due to a problem![/COLOR] Eye appeal is not a factor - surface preservation, marks, corrosion, etc are. [B]Technical grading actually reduces the subjectivity in grading a considerable amount [/B][COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][[B]BINGO![/B] That's what my original system did. Precise, repeatable grading without change due to time or market condition as long as the coin remained unchanged when seen again. The true technical system]:[/COLOR] Is there corrosion present? Deduct 5 points. Is there a mark on the cheek? Deduct 5 points. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][EXACTLY why EAC grading is wacky, subjective, stupid, folly because folks regard anything they see on a coin subjectively. The mark on the cheek - deduct 2 points, Corrosion? Deduct 10 points. :D][/COLOR] Its a set formula based on technical factors - not a wishy washy scale based on how much I like the flash of the luster or the color on the coin. (the interpretation may vary slightly between graders, but it is far more consistent than market grading) This distinction is very important, and commonly misunderstood. [B]*A TPG is [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)]NOT[/COLOR] "grading" a coin. They ARE assigning it a Value.* [/B] [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][B]Additionally, an EAC member is [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]NOT[/COLOR] "grading" a coin.[/B] They are assigning a value. I prefer the commercial graders at the TPGS. At least they call an EF coin EF and not VF due to problems. [/COLOR] [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)] News flash folks: Modern day "detail" grading as practiced by the major TPGS's is actually the best example of the original Technical Grading System![/COLOR] In a market grading scheme, "aesthetic judgements of a coin's desirability" (i.e., eye appeal) are central to the scheme. They haven't "crept" into the grading - its central to their mandate. [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)][100% Correct][/COLOR] [COLOR=rgb(179, 0, 0)]to be continued...:yack::yack::yack::yack::yack:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Has Grading Gone to Far?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...