Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 2772016, member: 27832&quot;]So I think what you&#039;ve actually said here is that you can&#039;t just keep resubmitting and count on an eventual upgrade -- <b>unless something changes</b>. And then you explained what likely <i>has</i> changed.</p><p><br /></p><p>My own take probably isn&#039;t worth much, because I still haven&#039;t had much practice distinguishing MS grades or submitting to TPGs. But my <i>guess</i> would be that, as you run the same coin past multiple graders (or the same grader) again and again, assigned grades would fall onto some sort of <b>distribution</b> -- for the coin in question, mostly 67, but maybe occasionally 66+ or 67+, or maybe even 66 or 68. You wouldn&#039;t <i>often</i> get a grade other than a 67, perhaps, and maybe you&#039;d only get the 68 one time in a hundred. But, yes, it <i>would</i> eventually upgrade.</p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s your recipe for getting people to resubmit 100 times. And that would surely be a TPG&#039;s <i>very favorite</i> recipe. Yum!</p><p><br /></p><p>Or maybe I&#039;m wrong, and grading repeatability is better than that. In that case, how will TPGs get people to resubmit, if the chances of a random upgrade are vanishingly small? Well, one way would be to <i>change standards</i> -- say, by making eye appeal &quot;a bigger part of a coin&#039;s grade&quot;. Then, when you see coins not as nice as yours getting the same or a higher grade, the <i>obvious</i> response is to resubmit yours, so it&#039;s in a slab that more accurately reflects its value relative to its inferiors.</p><p><br /></p><p>I suppose TPGs <i>might</i> decide that increasing their revenue isn&#039;t as important as supporting an unchanging, objective, and completely repeatable grading process. But that&#039;s not what I seem to see in the discussions here.[/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