Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 4586660, member: 5629&quot;]I&#039;m sorry but you are mistaken.&nbsp; We are talking specifically about the N.C.I. Grading approach.&nbsp; Halprin admits that his choice of the weight ratio is arbitrary and just to keep things simple.&nbsp; In his opinion, the surface preservation is twice as important as any other aspect.&nbsp; So be it...it&#039;s his approach.&nbsp; That does not, however, make it any less arbitrary.</p><p><br /></p><p>And you must misunderstand his formula.&nbsp; The N.C.I. formula did not assign &quot;grades&quot; for each of the four corresponding aspects, weight them, then sum them up.&nbsp; Each aspect of grading was given &quot;points&quot; ranging from 1 to 5..that&#039;s it!&nbsp; Not grades 60-70...points...1 to 5.&nbsp; After the points were given, the surface preservation points were given a multiple of two.&nbsp; Then all points were added together.&nbsp; That gave you a total possibility from 5 to 25 points for a coin.&nbsp; The coin was then &quot;graded&quot; based upon the following (and, yes...arbitrary) scale:</p><p><br /></p><p>5 to 10.49 = 60</p><p>10.5 to 12.49 = 61</p><p>12.5 to 13.99 = 62</p><p>14 to 16.99 = 63</p><p>17 to 18.99 = 64</p><p>19 to 20.99 = 65</p><p>21 to 22.49 = 66</p><p>22.5 to 25 = 67</p><p><br /></p><p>And even the process above is still only a simplification of the entire process which also includes determining the severity and location of imperfections (ranging from location multipliers of 4x, 2x, 1x, .5x, .25x against the severity determination to get your 1 to 5 points for surface preservation) and use of intermediate points for strike and lustre (like 3.6 or 2.89...arbitrarily used, of course).</p><p><br /></p><p>In premise, the approach has merits, but as put in practice by N.C.I., I would have to disagree.[/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