Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

This topic is discussed on an almost constant basis but this thread is a good chat about the subject guys!

On a similar topic, I seem to remember reading somewhere something about wanting to.expand on the Sheldon system by adding points to unc grades like ms65.1/2/3/4/5 etc, does anyone have specific knowledge about this and why it came about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No specific knowledge here but isn't it queer that somebody always wants to monkey with an existing system?
I'll speculate that it won't be adopted anytime soon.

 

The Sheldon 70 point system is horrible. So is every replacement system. Until you have somethjng quantitatively AND qualitatively better, momentum prevents change.

 

Another thing is the use of market grading. I don't know if this continues to be done as much as it was before.

 

The ANA grading standards committee formed in 1977 and the book was published in 1978. ANACS began grading in 1979. PCGS didn't come along until 8 years after the standards were published. But you are right they did create their own standards, as did NGC, and every other grading service.

It makes the whole question about who gets it "right" meaningless. There is no "right", or there are multiple "rights" and they all get it right under their own system.

 

"Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?"

Not in my opinion.............

 

What is the latest on machine grading? You would think with the advances in optics, computers, programming, etc. someone could help take out the subjective grading our coins are subjected too.
It would help if we knew the criteria that NGC is going to use on a coin, LBJ $1 Reverse Proof, before we send it in and spend $20. Just my thoughts.

 

PCGS has the process locked down tight by patent. If it happens, they'll be the ones doing it.

 

I doubt very highly the patent would hold up After the Alice Corp decision.

 

I was watching a PCGS video and they were talking about how they tried to explore machine grading back in the early 90s. They said it just didn't work. But computers have gotten so much more powerful now, I don't see a reason now they couldn't be implemented to establish a technical grade base. But subjective eyes will always be needed to detect cleaning, damage, eye appeal.

 

I feel this one is task-specific enough to stand. You tell me; I know you to contemplate these things rather thoroughly:

http://www.google.com/patents/US5224176

 

How about computer grading as an adjunct?? And have the program source codes actually written by pro numismatists...?

 

IMO, a "majority" of the coin dealers feel that PCGS and NGC get it right more often than they get it wrong but "both" services have gotten it wrong and "both" services have made "competitive" corrections to previous grades just so that the coin would reside in their slabs. For example, an AU58 coin that gets resubmitted and comes back an MS62. Did they get it "wrong" the first time or "right" the second time?

Remember, regardless of WHAT grading standard is used, grading is an "opinion". Nothing more and nothing less. Technical grading doesn't count as much as opinions based upon experience.

The reality of the situation is, is that both TPG's have become the "marketing standard" for coin grading yet both companies have their own individual "grading standards" which, as worded, are open to interpretation and often change quite dramatically "with the market".

The exact same coin can and often does grade differently upon crack out and resubmission. Some graded as "cleaned" come back graded while a graded coin crack out and resubmitted can come back "cleaned".

Once coin collectors simply shop for the best coin that they can afford and to heck with the grading companies and their somewhat blown out of proportion values, the better off they will be.

Collectors should NOT be submitting coins for grading "unless" they have the specific intention of selling the coins (and selling them quickly) because it only takes a few quick, uneducated grading submissions until the collector becomes "underwater" in grading fee's.

 

It would never work since grading by the TPG's is NOT based upon a technical standard. It's based upon the graders "opinion".

Often times, MS coins can have disruptions in the field due to some occurance either in the manufacture OR in the handling. Some hits are acceptable. The degree of acceptability is up to the grader as no two coins are exactly alike.

All one has to do, when thinking about computer grading, is analyze all the various photo's which get posted on coin forums and all the different "opinions" which get posted by various individuals. 9 out of 10 times, a respected posters opinion will sway the opinions of subsequent posters. Not that it really matters since coins are graded in hand and NOT by photograph which depending upon the lighting which is used can produce a completely different looking coin.

It's nice to dream about computer grading but its simply never going to happen with any respected success.

 

Desk Set..........

 

Arthur C. Clark tried to get a patent on satellites around the world for communication. It was refused because they couldn't do it at that time. Same thing should apply to coin grading now. They haven't been able to do it in the past but will in the future.

 

They said the same thing about flying.