I have decided to make a sliding scale of how severe damage on a coin is to signify whether damage is minor or major. DMG-1: The coin has a little bit of minor damage, such as a medium sized scratch. It's only noticeable if you know where to look. DMG-2: The coin has some more minor damage than in DMG-1. It's easy to see. DMG-3: The coin has multiple instances of minor damage, or one instance of major damage. DMG-4: The coin has minor damage that covers a significant portion of the coin, or at least 2-3 major imperfections. If a coin has 1 major damage a DMG-2 level of minor damage, it falls under DMG-4. DMG-5: The coin would not grade problem-free at SGS. DMG-6: The coin is completely toasted off by corrosion, put in the ground for years, run over by a train, or is missing parts.
No matter how minor, damage affects the grade and the value. You could never find an MS coin with a rating of DMG-1, 2, 3, or 4. It just doesn't exist. The same would be true for AU, XF, VF and on down the line. It's not going to work! Chris
In theory it could maybe work if paired with a "details" label, but what classifies as a level 1 for one person may classify as a level 3 for another. This would probably be even more subjective than assigning a numerical grade, because someone may prefer a scratch to a nick, or a bend to a cleaning, or a nick to a bend, or no coin at all to a damaged coin, etc. That said, the most glaring flaw is finding a coin that SGS wouldn't give a MS68-70, let alone a details grade!!
If used by a person for personal considerations in their own dealings it could help them, but hopefully such never by a grading concern, as they barely can deal with what they have just in grading. Next there will be broken beans, ground beans, corroded beans, etc. issued to take money from unknowing and susceptible new collectors, who need to have their graded damage confirmed by a "bean" company.
I agree damage is damage but damage that is not so detracting you can get a bigger percentage of the actual price where some it is hard to get anything at all.
If only that were true. Don't me wrong now, personally I agree with you completely, thus my first comment. Sadly though, the TPGs do not agree. Their rules as to what does or does not define damage are arbitrary. For example, a Roosevelt dime with a scratch of a given size will be put in a Genuine slab. But a Seated dime, or a Barber, or sometimes even a Merc, with a scratch of equal size will be cleanly graded. But then again when the scratch is big enough the Merc, the Barber, the Seated, will also get the Genuine slab. Unless of course that particular date is scarce, and then that particular coin even though it has a scratch of equal size, is cleanly graded. The same follows with coins of a certain pedigree, or a certain value as well. Now I'm just using dimes here as the example, but the same follows with any coin regardless of denomination. And it's not just with scratches, but all of their problem coin designations. They change the rules as it suits them. And this should not be.
I grade some of my tokens but only AU, or MS so when I review my catalog I can quickly determine which ones are better. I also describe damage. I could see the usefulness of creating a system/abbreviation listing for the damage I would document. I document damage for the same reason as stellar examples - so I can quickly highlight the ones that could use a suitable replacement. Don't think I would use any kind of numerical system since I don't use one anyway. BT - bent, CR - corroded, SC - scratch, etc. but I wasn't that clever and just typed out the whole world.
Wear and bag marks are also damage, technically speaking, and we have a objective scale (sort of...) for quantifying that. It's interesting how NGC grades Ancients considering that they are all "problem coins" with cleaning, environmental damage and so forth. In addition to wear, they rate the coins on a five point scale for strike and surface quality. I don't think its too far fetched to imagine a similar scale being adopted for other coins. Psychologically, at least for me, a "details" holder carries the same stigma regardless of the severity of the problem. If the TPG's were to adopt a severity scale for rating problems, it might create some more liquidity for "problem" coins. Plus it would generate more profit from resubmissions. On the other hand I do realize that this would add a lot of complexity as well as subjectivity. Turning every coin into a science project could make some people just give up on the whole thing.
