Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 7856254, member: 46237&quot;]Yes, clearly you are right, however, when I say there is nothing useful from &quot;conservative&quot; grading, I mean it in the same way that a stack of books is not useful to reach a high shelf when you have a stepladder. This is not to say you can&#039;t stand on the books but rather why would you bother when there is a superior tool at hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>All that aside, my real problem here is and has always been the AU58 and MS60 coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>We have a linear grading scale for circulated coins 1-58, and then we have another linear grading scale for uncirculated coins 60-70. On their own they are wonderful perfectly reasonable grading scales! The problem is that they are combined one on top of another <i>and you cannot do that</i> because the two scales are not measuring the same thing. Not only are they not measuring the same thing, but they are in direct conflict with each other when you try to use the resulting grade to produce a value for a coin. Unsurprisingly the problem occurs right around the point where the scales connect to each other.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the circulated grading scale, AU58 is the absolute top quality coin. The problem is that there is an enormous quality spread for AU58 coins. The very best AU58 coins, both in terms of value and quality can surpass many MS coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the uncirculated grading scale, MS60 is the absolute worst quality coin. The problem is that the quality and value of these very worst MS coins can drop below that of many circulated examples. I know I&#039;ve passed on some real dog MS60s in favor of gorgeous AU55s.</p><p><br /></p><p>So as I said - which you agreed with - that one of the primary reasons for grading is to establish a hierarchy for like examples. Well when you combine these two scales together you lose the hierarchy because there is significant overlap in quality from one scale to the other around the area where the scales join together, but the way the scales are combined <i>cannot and does not reflect</i> the reality of this overlap. A hard and fast &quot;conservative&quot; approach to grading only makes this problem worse, as the more conservative you get, the less meaningful the grades around AU58-MS60 become.</p><p><br /></p><p>The other problem is that we don&#039;t just have a grading scale from 1-70, but we have those <i>prefixes</i> to the grade that represent the level of wear, and people lose their minds over these prefixes. Since MS represents mint state and it is attached to the 60-70 grades, assigning a grade of 60-70 <i>brings along with it the baggage of the MS prefix</i>. So to call a coin with wear MS62 rubs people the wrong way (pun intended) because the grade isn&#039;t just a 62 but it&#039;s got that pesky <b>MS</b> tagging along with it and well, it&#039;s just not a mint state coin so you can&#039;t correctly give it a grade prefix that says that it is Mint State. And likewise with AU. I get it. I really do. <b>The need to accurately reflect the quality of the coin for the purpose of constructing this hierarchy of like examples is at odds with the assignment of the grade prefix.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s really two ways to handle it that I see. The first (and the one I advocate for) is to drop the prefixes altogether and just have the numbers 1-70 where it is a linear quality scale. Coins with wear and coins without wear will naturally overlap somewhat commensurate with their quality around the high 50s to mid 60s. Naturally, apparently circulated coins will still be towards the bottom of the scale and better mint state coins will be towards the top of the scale. This is a linear representation of coin quality/value that accurately describes the coin populations how they actually are; higher quality coins (some of which are circulated) and lower quality coins (some of which are uncirculated).</p><p><br /></p><p>The second way to fix it is to embrace the prefixes, but treat the scales separately, as we do with proofs. Extend the AU grades from AU58-AU69 and extend the MS grades down to maybe MS50 (though you likely won&#039;t see AU examples go that high or MS examples that low). People don&#039;t seem to have a problem understanding that a PF64 is graded differently than a business strike, and the comparable numeric grade means something quite different in terms of appearance, handling, and value. I trust they would likewise very quickly understand the implications of an AU64 or an MS58. You might even create a new market for collectors of AU60+ graded sets.[/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