ICG And HSN'S Mike Mezack Part Ways? "There are 3 Major Grading Services"

We operate in the real world not hypothetical I want grading to be like this land. Most of what Doug says about how easy He makes upgrading sound is just false anyway but since it’s been I think about a decade since he’s really been involved with the market he’s going to just think what he wants regardless of what is really happening.

Most coins will grade the same at the various TPGs, at least between PCGS and NGC and ICG. They all have slightly different things they reward and penalize, which is no different than very coin expert there is. Some people want to pretend like there’s supposed to be a correct answer like grading is a hard science, it’s not which is why even series experts and spealists don’t grade the same 100 percent of the time and they never have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But since you were so kind as to ask my opinion of what kind of grading structure would better handle coins of the type I wrote of, I'll tell you.

I propose that AU run from a numerical grade of 50 through 64; i.e. 50, 53, 55, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, and ONLY under the most extraordinary circumstances, 64.

I also propose that MS start at 53, to yield 53, 55, 58, and every point from 60 to 70.

Under this system, it would become OBVIOUS, to me at least, that I ought to expect to pay more for an AU62 than a MS60 or MS58.

The problem is this - MS60 is not low enough for some of the ugloid technically MS coins out there. I think I even own one. It's a 1935-D Merc dime graded MS60FSB. And AU58 is not high enough for my California Commem 1925 half.

Would this "solve the whole problem"? Oh goodness no, but it moves it in the right direction.

 

Having overlap there is an interesting solution. Might be a little too radical for right now but something along those lines could be possible down the line.

I might not go as low as 53 with the MS though, that seems like a coin that should just get a details grade if it’s that bad you’d drop it down that far

 

To me, an MS53 is a coin that has technically no "wear" as it is defined, but is baggy, with virtually no luster, and a crummy strike. It is a coin that the majority of collectors would leave on the table if given the choice between it and a normal AU55. Such coins do exist; far too many.

What concerns ME is that 53 might not be low ENOUGH. "How LOW can we GO?"

 

The difference would be determined by who correctly applied that standard on the most consistent basis.

 

Actually what I am proposing is halfway similar to what is happening today, in the two digits part. The “lie” is in the two letters.

 

As it is today, no? What’s making me scared is I’m almost never disappointed when I submit coins for grading anymore. I’m usually jumping up and down with glee, except that my return package is underinsured.

 

Without a doubt, I could just see pushback from the two letter versions.

I’m starting to think the solution may be even simpler, just dump the letters all together in terms of grade. Keep the pr and sp and use where appropriate and just have it be understood that any grade with just numbers is a business strike

 

Ohhhhh, "BS coins".

 

Lol yes that’s why that should be left off lol

 

I put BS numerical grades on counterfeits that I catch.

 

Then, for heaven's sake, let's have vector instead of scalar grades!

Each aspect gets a number. If you need to have a single measure, pick a standard function that takes all four numbers, does some math, and produces a single result. You can even make that number the one that gets displayed prominently at the top of the slab -- but make sure the others appear clearly.

Now, to achieve Market Happiness, figure out your own mapping function, and see where it differs from the standard. That gives you a numeric guide to potential bargains, where your composite score for the coin is higher than the market score.

The measures aren't orthogonal -- you can't decrease preservation but so far without decreasing luster, and you can't decrease any of them too far without hurting eye appeal -- but I'm pretty sure that you can't determine any one from the other three. (I thought eye appeal, but maybe that's the catchall for toning and more subtle things.)

It works for diamonds; why not for coins?

Then again, I've got a computer-science background, and I always want access to the raw data.

 

But Jeff,

This is 'Murrica. We don't do math in public anymore.

 

The ideas in the last dozen posts sound so intelligent to me that I know they’re doomed...

 

Right now, I have on my desk the ANA's Grading Mint State U.S. Coins: An ANA Correspondence Course. This is not some Whitman book you can pluck off the shelf at Ollie's Bargain Outlet. This is part of the ANA's Numismatic Diploma Program of courses. My copy is copyright 1999, because that's when I took the course. "High Honors", by the way.

Section 3 is called "Grading Philosophies", starting on page 11. There are three subsections. On page 12 is "Market vs. Technical Grading". On page 13 is "Technical vs. Market Grading" (two different authors, what can I say?). On page 16 is "Grading Components", the very same big 4 I wrote of upthread. In ALL of it, it reports that FOR MINT STATE COINS, technical grading is obsolete. It's still useable for circulated grades.

The ENTIRE rest of the book teaches how to market grade with all the ANA imprimatur that the book Rich has lacks. And that's the truth.

19 years ago. Not recently. 19 years. Next year it's 20 years. Get it? Geez, you'd think smart guys would be able to keep up within two decades.

@GDJMSP, @imrich, @mikenoodle. Tag, you're it.

 

I don't know what to say. My mic is a Blue (company) Raspberry, and it cost me a bundle. I even keep it in its own little Pelican case when not in use. There will BE NO mic dropping.

 

Kurt, I believe those tagged understand your majority choice, and if I were less conservative with different education/experiences, I'd probably be in your camp. I realize you don't understand that I wasn't challenging your choices, but merely your unsupported statement relative to the basis/origin for the published original grading standards.

I'm more concerned about future ramifications, as I believe in a legal understanding that generally adheres to published objective facts, rather than subjective desires.

The PCI litigation I linked was an expected legal process and outcome, believed based on established tangible criteria/facts.

The choice in collecting is a personal decision probably generally based on life experiences.

You are probably more correct than I in your choices, as it appears the world inclination is quite liberal in expectations. Only time can probably determine the future of Numismatics.

JMHO

 

I stand corrected.

 

@V. Kurt Bellman what’s wrong with books from Whitman???

Seriously, I wish that people would support their arguments in any way other than being negative about something else. I know that the ANA course is a great course, but why trash the one publisher in this hobby that actually brings more people into the hobby???

That said, I couldn’t agree more that technical grading is excellent for circulated coins and falls apart at Mint State. It took me a long time to understand the value of market grading Mint State coins, but now that I do I’m on board.

The current system of grading Mint State coins is not working very well, but it’s the best we have for now. I would welcome innovation in this arena, but I don’t have any suggestions.

An argument that is not being made here is that TPGs don’t really grade Mint State coins as much as they (appraise) value them. The problem is that people try to make it hard science when it’s largely subjective. I also agree with a key point made by @Insider that the numbers on the slab are not as important (nor even always grounded in reality) as the relative rank of the coins from top to bottom. (insert 5 emojis here)