Classic Coins: How Big Can A Rim Ding Be Without A Details Grade?

How true!

They probably have hundreds of coins that a set of senior graders believe are solid for the grade that are used to test newcomers. For incoming graders, they try to have them set on 65% accuracy before they are able join the team. I do not work for NGC, but this information is coming from an acquaintance.



Couldn't help but think of science vs art classes. In any math class, there is either single or multiple right answers. You either get it wrong or right. English class, a class in which there is no right answer, I never got 100% because there is always something to improve on, from the perspective of the teacher. Coin grading is an art, in which there is no right answer.

This distinction becomes clear with damaged coins, examples with varying eye appeal, and weak strikes. With a blast white Morgan dollar, there is a decent chance there is a "right" answer. On the other hand, a weakly struck bust half dollar will have different opinions among graders.

In this business, there is in fact a "correct" standard, and that is of the TPG grading services. If you have a Morgan dollar that you strongly believe is a 65, and PCGS continues to return it as a 64, what does it profit to you to continue thinking you are correct? When I get passed a coin to grade and value, I first ask which grading service will be receiving the coin. The multitude of companies have differing standards that need to be learned.

Of course... except coin grading is not a science, it is an art. Which means you can't expect anything precise.

10 years ago I had a nice looking VF-XF raw 1803 large 3 half. It had a rim ding, not huge but noticeable. Eventually I bartered it away for a common half eagle. Would it have straight graded? Maybe or maybe not, but the ding bothered me.

Exactly. Which is why the video I mentioned is misleading. They keep talking about getting the "right grade" over and over. It makes for good marketing b/c when people hear something often enough, they start to believe it.

The very premise of the video presents grading as if it is verifiable to a standard. The presentation is misleading. If an individual tried something like that they would be accused of lying (at worst) and/or being misleading (at the very least). Whichever the individual were tagged with, they would be accused of wittholding important information for the sake of profiteering.

To be totally on the level, the person giving the challenge should be making an effort not to use the terms "right/wrong" or "correct/incorrect" when specifically assessing Mr. Morgan's guesses. The term "subjective" should be something heard many times in the video. Terminology such as "experienced guesses" could be something else to help alleviate the feeling people automatically mistake by thinking the slabs had verifiable standards applied so someone taking the challenge understands their score means they were shooting to guess a moveable target that can register a hit or miss today...but the hit or miss might change status tomorrow.

But...it is more profitable when "everyone" just "knows" the companies are unquestionable in the grades they assign. And a LOT of people, especially newbies, never take the time to think about the truth. This costs the unsuspecting a lot of money - thousands of dollars. Look in the essay in my signature where people have paid thousands for Kennedy half 1972-D "No FG" designated slabs that do not even stand up against PCGS's own stated standard that there can be no trace of the FG left. If "everyone" knew the truth about subjectivity, we would not always be telling people to buy the coin and not the slab.




An art is exactly what the companies call it. Sorry I don't have a reference for you to link to, but do some homework online. You will see they call it an art b/c, as they say in print (typically on those boring pages online no one reads!), grading is subjective. But nowadays they have enough faithful followers they could shout it from the housetops and likely their loyal customer base would say, "so what?"




Correct, while they say grading is subjective, they desire a reputation for the system being verifiable and scientific.

What gets me is people who believe in the infallibility of the grading companies (from not understanding all of the above) will also ones to pay CAC to tell how well the infallible companies did their job!

While the companies hope to appear scientific, they also rely upon psychology. In general the human mind NEEDS/craves an expert's opinion...especially on something of value. So when the companies set themselves up as THE experts, they knew people would eventually accept them and fork out the cash.

Now that the customer base is so huge (and I attribute their major period of growth to when the internet started placing slabs in front of everyone all the time), it is evident by online social media that the masses have no idea what "the experts" really are all about and how they work.

I have no idea why calling something a science or art is fanciful. It is purely defining terms so we can agree on a premise. Dismissing all possibilities is unimaginative.

And..