Serious Question (about grading)

That's ok, we welcome opinions, even silly ones...

What does changing from 1-70 --> 1-100 ACTUALLY do for you?

There is no identified need for additional fineness of gradations for circulated coins.

If you merely increase everything proportionally, 1.42x (7/6ths), then you end up with MS60 --> nMS85.

So you've allowed 16 grades of MS instead of the current 11. But we've already demonstrated that we can't reliably, repeatedly, consistently use the 11.

How does more help?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Simple transform

Old New
Po1 Po1
Fr2 Fr3
Ag3 Ag4
G4 G6
G6 G9
VG8 VG11
VG10 VG14
VG12 VG17
F15 F21
F20 F29
VF25 VF36
VF30 VF43
VF35 VF50
XF40 XF57
XF45 XF64
AU50 AU71
AU53 AU76
AU55 AU79
AU58 AU83
MS60 MS86
MS61 MS87
MS62 MS89
MS63 MS90
MS64 MS91
MS65 MS93
MS66 MS94
MS67 MS96
MS68 MS97
MS69 MS99
MS70 MS100

 

I'm sorry, but I can't control my outrage when I hear what I consider "tripe" about "eye appeal" being acceptable overriding criteria for a grade, as can possibly be viewed in this linked coin which I own: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-S-PCGS...nh6R4845GxwBo2UlXz5yc%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

This is a TPG that has returned a "Gem" condition uniformly lustrous virtually flawless detail Gold coin as ungradable "scratch" (virtually imperceivable without tipping). The images in auction don't show the "scratch" of greater duration than my "ungradable" coin, but clearly show the nicks, gouges, atrocious "bag rub" and discoloration in devices and fields.

The published A.N.A. MS65 "Gem" standard for this coin is: No trace of wear, full mint luster/brilliance, may show slight discoloration, usually present are a few minute bag marks and surface abrasions

I take exception to your plea that standards be deferred to allow disregarding "eye appeal".

I believe this is market grading in an extreme condition because of the date scarcity. I prefer that the published standards are met, and then "eye appeal" allowed as a "plus" (+) addition to the grade.

JMHO

 

You're certainly allowed to grade how ever you want, everyone has their preferences. Purely technical graders don't like the grading of their era that much, while others who have always considered eye appeal a factor that goes into it like the current standard.

But eye appeal is part of their actual grade, they don't hide that fact in their grading videos. I grade with eye appeal as part of it too. I would rather have a stunning pleasing to the eye coin that may be technically weak than an ugly technically strong coin for the grade. It doesn't mean a 15 will become a 40 but a 35 could or a 40 a 35 for being ugly.

 

I believe you're correct that we can personally grade as we like, possibly with the exception of sales to Minnesota, but the future may adjudge that those touting representative applicability of A.N.A. Standards may need to grade thus:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1924-Saint-...525197?hash=item5688c0d0cd:g:LLwAAOSwopdXMRAj

or have an "eye appealing" product offered thus:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-S-Sain...997162?hash=item58d7d22b6a:g:yT8AAOSwEK9T19Eb http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-S-Sain...997162?hash=item58d7d22b6a:g:yT8AAOSwEK9T19Eb

I believe "time will tell"

JMHO

 

Didn't we just have this discussion about "eye appeal" not too long ago? To me eye appeal is what makes me pickup a coin in the first place(can vary from person to person) - to me everything else is technical grade. To me a + or * would mean nothing more than they thought it was "pretty". Otherwise a 40 is a 40 technically speaking - it could be an ugly 40 but it is still a 40. Just my opinion - now back to my regularly scheduled reading.

And sometimes I think Doug is right when it comes to grading recently.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ca...l-pass-fail-exceed.272501/page-2#post-2324711

 

87.932157%

 

I disagree with your opinion by at least five thousandths.

 

is that rounded off

 

I would now consider them to be about even whereas I used to prefer PCGS across most coins. I still have preferences of each for certain coins, but it's more even now. NGC has also made a large improvement on their holders and labels too, imo. I used to think their holders were clearly inferior. They don't look as bad as they used to.

To stay on topic though... grading standards have dropped due to the competition among each other.

Nice use of words by the way

 

If we are seriously going to change, I would much prefer a multi-dimensional scheme...

Wear
Strike
Surface
Issues
Appeal


Mint state, well struck, original surface, several bag marks on the field, slight attractive toning

vs.

Mint state, weak strike, original surface, distracting bag marks on the cheek, blotchly toning

Yet both are MS64...

It almost sounds like the old days

 

I believe that objective adjudication would establish that the current A.N.A. grading system, when properly applied, generally accounts for 4 of the 5 factors you've desired, and the 5th subjective factor is considered by suffixes as +, PL, DMPL, etc..

Toning, which some would like to include as a grading factor, is a varying degradation process, generally known as "Tarnish". It is a product of chemical reaction between a metal and a nonmetallic compound, often oxygen and sulfide dioxide. It may be a continuously changing process during the "life" of the coin, possibly severely de-grading. This factor is already stated in the grading process, as an elevated degree of "toning" can be horrendously "ugly". Often the MS70 (ultimately perfect grade) standard states: Must have full mint luster and brilliance, or "light toning".

This degradation process isn't necessarily suspended by current encapsulation process, generally requiring evacuation, inert gas inclusion, and a hermetically sealed enclosure.

It's believed that instantaneous grading of this process is foolhardy. possibly resulting in future liability.

JMHO