Legit And Verifiable Coin Grading Is On The Horizon! Let In The Beanie Babies!

The beauty of the system is that it will have to, inevitably, be exposed to more legit slabs than fake. The fakes will be automatically ousted just like, say, an MS60 that has been graded at the end of the day by a tired grader as being MS62, 63 etc.

The very fact the reslabbing game exists proves that despite two people grading each coin (as the PCGS guarantee indicates when read carefully) every time it is (re)sent in, various grades can be, and are, presently assigned to the same coin. Just like when you were taught how to average numbers in math class, the program (obviously using much more data) has this ability since it is said to learn from experience.

However, I also suspect that IF fake slabs actually would become a problem, it would be very simple for a program to verify the slab as well. People can do this verification now by looking up online what we need to. An app can be online and check much faster than we can.

I have also seen AI programmers respond to this concept of an AI being able to tell eye appeal. This is something very attainable by an AI b/c it learns human responses.

To me eye appeal is a moot point anyway though. In the end it is the buyer who determines eye appeal. I have seen a lot of ugly (to me) brown and mottled stained coins in high MS graded slabs that people say are beautiful to them. They like it, they by it. For me, you could not pay me to own it!

Is your frustration/contempt with human grading based on TPG's capitalizing on potential yet speculated gains to their "errors" in grading, or the fact that the grade cannot be 100% fully trusted sight unseen? Or both?

My issues with apps; they are based on taking an image of the coin. One angle is not enough to accurately and affectively judge a coins surface. Even if an app could take multiple images, layer images, or even use a video, it's judging the coin on only what is captured. The different between a grade could be a small missed imperfection.

Grading is subjective; this has been an argument for decades, and it's very true. There are so many factors when it comes to grading. Imperfection, strike, luster, die state, overall eye appeal. There is always the possibility of AI taking all this into account and becoming more consistent than human grades.

Bottom line; I will always use my own judgment when purchasing a coin when it comes to grades. I'll pay less, or won't buy at all, a coin that I consider to have lower eye appeal, and may pay a premium for a coin with good eye appeal.

Even if AI takes off, becomes the new standard, and is "100% guaranteed", I'm still taking it with a grain of salt and will use my own judgment. IMO, there's a level of ignorance for those that put all faith in the slab. That is on them. They can choose to educate themselves and make the decision based on their preference/knowledge and opinion, or trust the grader/AI.

AI or human, it's all an opinion.

When I got back into the hobby actively in 2011 I wanted to understand how the grading companies had progressed. I had a pre-conceived notion from when they had first come out that was prevalent to the dealers/collectors I was associated with that the concept was just a profiteering business scheme. I wanted to know if this was a fair assessment or not seeing 10+ years had passed since I was serious about coins .

After a lot of research (a passion of mine for whatever I am doing) I found the deeper I looked into videos, their actual claims (like the touted PCGS guarantee), and after seeing legitimate grievances about the companies that I needed to dig even deeper.

After seeing there are people people being taken b/c they put total faith in these companies, I dug deep into one of my specialties, the Kennedy half. The way they have used a non-error for what looks like profiteering is sad. And their labels on obvious pieces having the FG still showing has cost collectors who just assume the companies are 100% legit as assumed, have been taken for thousands of dollars. The company created the market for a non-error slab (their former president Ron Guth "discovered" the 1972 D No FG half and PCGS marketed the idea) that can occur on any date of the Kennedy half, they limit the number of highest graded slabs to drive the price up, while breaking their own rules (30% of the time... see the data from their website in the essay in my signature), and since most people do not know things like this are happening the companies continue to profit from the unsuspecting.

I then even found it ridiculous they have no idea the one legitimate No FG half (1982) also has a major characteristic on the OBV that easily distinguishes it from the normal ones with an FG. Either they do not know or do not tell about it b/c that way they can slab more illegitimate halves as being No FG for this date. See the essay.

This forum is about educating and helping collectors and newbies.

If we say we are concerned about educating collectors, then the facts that a lot of people lose a lot of money to these companies and their products also needs be presented b/c way too many people just assume, since they see so many slabs nowadays, that the companies are the unquestionable experts. These companies do nothing to educate people about what NOT to send in b/c it is wasting the consumers money (such as examples of damaged coins, and coins that are NOT errors) b/c profits would drop. And even reading their alleged and touted PCGS guarantee with a concerning eye shows it only benefits the company (as we have seen by posts here to this forum).

I understand the love affair (not a derogatory term!) people can have with the idea of what the companies are ASSUMED to be. And I also understand when people find out there are many flies in the (expensive) ointment they have invested in that hackels automatically get raised. But facts are facts and do not change based upon desire.

It is time coin grading was taken BACK to the level it was in the 90s using tech. But now our systems are so much better we can do a much better job.

Let me start this by stating I am not advocating for the companies, slab everything, only buy graded coins, etc. I have also had my fair share of issues with TPG's, one of which more recently and IMO, quite egregious. That said.....





This is the point I was trying to covey in my first reply to this thread. It is not the grading companies responsibility to teach the public about grading. Those that do put total faith in these companies are ignorant to an extent. I don't mean that negatively, but if one does not put in the time (years and years) of research and experience to come to their own conclusion on a grade, then that is on them. As the app has taken averages of graded examples and drawn its conclusion as to what is considered "accurate", so have I. I'm by no mean a perfect grader and never will be. I am however confident in my in hand grading abilities in areas of numismatics that I collect and am comfortable with. At the end of the day, that's all that is relevant. Because of my own due diligence, research, help from others, etc., I will never say I was taken advantage of a TPG bc I blindly trusted the holder.


Regardless of what a TPG, an App, or AI says, people will have their own opinions of a grade and agree or disagree. It's human nature. Honestly, it would be quite boring/sad if we lived in a world where AI determined a grade and everyone agreed it to be "accurate". Will just never happen. Much like the opinions in this thread, we can agree to disagree.