How long before coins are no longer graded by people but by computers?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by luke2012, Feb 16, 2012.

Page 4 of 4
  1. JCB1983

    JCB1983 Learning

    If someone can unlock the combination on machine grading, and it is accurate, I'm all for it. As the time stands I made 11 PCGS submissions going on a month ago, and although received 2 weeks ago, they have yet to ship them back. This turn around time is just sad. Even if it is economy shipping.... and their demand is sky high... (if the demand is there why not hire more people??) I am beginning to think that some of these coins are kicked out as in mailed to peoples in the luxory of their own homes to grade.

    I would have guessed that they would have invented a coin grader, before inventing the coin sniffer btw.
     
    JCB1983, Feb 20, 2012
    #61 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    I would argue "never", but rather I'll say that current computer technology does not deal with subjective things like grading very well, so unless there's a quantum leap in computing technology that gets past the challenge of subjective measurements, I think that computer grading will be feasible anytime in the near future. More directly, computers can't judge subjective measure of eye appeal effectively...Mike (the computer scientist)

    p.s. there is a HUGE difference between landing a plane, tying a knot, dribbling a ball, and grading a coin. The first three can be objectively measured, the third cannot (to the best of my knowledge).

    p.s.s. the way a computer judges a pretty face is by measuring symmetry, an objective measure (which computers are exceedingly good at) and making an objective estimate of the subjective "prettiness". It's not not really a subjective measurement like a coin's eye appeal, and symmetry, while it is a part of eye appeal, it is hardly all of it.
     
    Leadfoot, Feb 20, 2012
    #62 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Agree with everything you say Mike. Dear God did I just say that ? :eek: :D

    I would further comment that there is far more to it than just considering what most people think are the subjective aspects of grading. For a computer to be able to grade a coin it would require and entirely different grading system than the one we use now. Few people ever seem to consider that though.

    For example, lets take a single grade like MS65 as described in the PCGS grading book. Their description is as follows.

    MS65

    Marks - There may be some scattered marks, hairlines, or other minor defects. If the flaws are in a main focal area, they must be minor and few. Hidden marks and hairlines can be larger. On dime-type and smaller, they almost always must be in the devices or must be very minor if they are in the fields. On large coins, there can be marks/hairlines in the fields and in the devices, but no major ones.

    Strike - The coin will be well struck.

    Luster - The luster will be at least average (almost always above average), and any toning can only slightly impair the luster. Copper coins can have mellowing of color for Red and unevenness of color for Red-Brown or Brown coins. NOTE - there can little minor spotting for copper coins.

    Now I could go on the say what it says about Eye Appeal but there is little point in doing so. The point I am trying to get across is that even with what we have listed here, a computer simply could not do that. The reason the computer could not do that is because nothing is quantified or qualified.

    Every use of the words such as - minor, major, few, some, average, slightly, main, unevenness - all of these words would have to precisely described, defined, sized and assigned specific numbers.

    None of that has ever been done. Nobody knows how exactly how big "major" is or how small "minor" is. How many is a "few" ? How many are "some" ? All of this is subjective, every bit of it - 100%. There is nothing in grading that is quantified and qualified.

    And a computer simply cannot deal with that. That is why thinking is required in grading.
     
    GDJMSP, Feb 20, 2012
    #63 + Quote Reply
  5. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Quoted for future reference, and just in case you change your mind. :)
     
    Leadfoot, Feb 20, 2012
    #64 + Quote Reply
  6. onejinx

    onejinx Junior Member

    I have to say this is one of the best topics I have read in a long time on here.
     
    onejinx, Feb 20, 2012
    #65 + Quote Reply
  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I would simply point out computers aren't doing any of these things, they are simply repeating instructions very smart humans have instructed them to. They cannot appreciate the artistry of a painting, they cannot authenticate based upon the passion in the piece, they can simply analyze paint composition, brush stroke technique, and similar quantitative methods. In fact, computer "authentication" of a painting is very flawed, since if you program a computer to authenticate a piece, at the same time you are programming it how to forge it the same way. Only a human can truly evaluate art. Same with coins. I collect them for their artistry, not for numerical evaluations in a database. Now, if they came up with a computer that could adequately find forgeries I would be all for it. Quantification of authenticity would be welcome, by evaluating metal isotopes, aging of patina, and the like. Please just don't ask me to agree with how a computer would evaluate art. Art is a human function, at least to me. :)

    Chris
     
    medoraman, Feb 20, 2012
    #66 + Quote Reply
Page 4 of 4
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page