Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1409225, member: 15309&quot;]I think the major problem with a comprehensive system for scoring toned coins is the inherent subjectivity involved when evaluating toning.&nbsp; Even among toning enthusiasts, we all have different opinions of what appeals to us and what is or is not a monster.&nbsp; I applaud your effort to create a scoring system and I like the overall concept.&nbsp; I just don&#039;t know if I could break down my appreciation of toning to 25% for each of the 4 categories you have listed.&nbsp; I would rather just score my overall opinion of the toning and then multiply it by 4.&nbsp; Right now you use a scale of 1 to 5 for each color category for both obverse and reverse.&nbsp; I would be more inclined to use a scale from 1 to 10 that included half grades and multiply by 4.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know much about toned proofs but from viewing your coins, it seems obvious that most coins if toned, are toned on both sides.&nbsp; This is not so in the mint state world and it seems unfair to penalize a monster bag toned Morgan Dollar simply because the toning was only on one side of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, I do use all four criteria that you use in my analysis but instead of having each worth the same amount, I would rather evaluate the color as a whole but know that my score incorporated each category.&nbsp; In essence, I think that the importance of your subcategories can change from coin to coin.&nbsp; Let&#039;s look at the obverse of two of my Jefferson Nickels to see what I am talking about.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Full%20Steps/JN1941-DNGCMS67Star5FS.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickel%20Registry/JN1950PCGSMS66.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Based on your criteria, both coins would have similar grade.&nbsp; I would grade the 1941-D as follows:&nbsp; 5 (Impression), 4 (Transition), 5 (Coordination), 5 (Rarity) yielding a total of 19.&nbsp; I would grade the 1950 as follows:&nbsp; 3 (Impression), 4 (Transition), 5 (Coordination), 5 (Rarity) yielding a total of 17.</p><p><br /></p><p>Using my criteria, the coins would have much different grades.&nbsp; IMO, the 1941-D is the finest toned regular issue Jefferson Nickel I have ever seen and would grade a perfect 10 yielding a total score of 20.&nbsp; The 1950 while nice simply doesn&#039;t deliver a great impression to the viewer due to a lack of vibrancy in the color and I would grade it a 6.5 yielding a total score of 13.&nbsp; So while the transitions, coordination, and rarity of the color are very similar on both coins, the impression of the color is simply much more important than 25% with relation to both of these coins.&nbsp; So much so that the Impression basically makes the other criteria trivial.&nbsp; The end result is that I paid a premium of over 5X PCGS price guide to obtain the 1941-D while paying 1/2 of PCGS price guide for the 1950.</p><p><br /></p><p>My intent here is not to criticize your method which I think is groundbreaking and very outside of the box.&nbsp; I just would like to point out that it may be too specific in order to handle the inherent subjectivity of toning.&nbsp; By creating such specific criteria, there may be times where you paint yourself into a corner.&nbsp; I think the only other time I have seen an attempt to quantify toning was a method proposed by Ron Sirna who was one of the founding members of the TCCS (Toned Coin Collectors Society).&nbsp; Unfortunately, that site no longer exists and I never made a copy of his method.[/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