| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,058 |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2884 Posts |
Hello Group, I just wanted to throw something out for debate and consideration. In what I term the somewhat bewildering world of numeric grading (the extremely close differences particularly in MS60-70 coins) has anyone thought about how much easier adjectival grading was to deal with. Please consider the following grade levels. Poor, Fair, About Good, Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extremely Fine, About Uncirculated, Mint State, Mint State 65 and Mint State 70 (the two numeric exceptions). The clear simplicity here was that each type of coin after many years of study was assigned a set of “conditions” the coin had to meet to attain a certain grade level. In order to move up to the next level another set of clearly defined criteria had to be met to attain the next upgrade. I’m not arguing for this as the industry has overwhelmingly accepted numeric grading but merely asking if anyone who grew up learning this method found it easier to deal with. I sometimes feel lost when purchasing coins in the high AU range and low MS range. There are enormous price gaps in some coins that fall into those ranges. On the other end of the spectrum some people are suggesting a 100-point scale instead of the current 70, as it is currently lopsided towards MS coins. I think the future will bring about computer photo grading (research that is well under way) that may take some of the guesswork out of it. My only problem is I doubt if a computer will ever recognize "eye appeal"!!!!!  Note....I'm all for verbal descriptions of any problems or positives associated with a coin. Edited by Mike
03/10/2005 06:18 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
My only problem with a computer grading all the coins is that the programmer has absolute control over the criteria for any given grade, 1 person in control of pops and prices , NO thank you !!! By the way I like the Numeric grading system ,,I just think that the system type needs to standardised.thru all of the TPG companies. Rick |
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
2884 Posts |
[quote] Originally posted by MetalmanMy only problem with a computer grading all the coins is that the programmer has absolute control over the criteria for any given grade, 1 person in control of pops and prices , NO thank you !!! By the way I like the Numeric grading system ,,I just think that the system type needs to standardised.thru all of the TPG companies. Rick I didn't mean a one person program. What I mean't was a load of data that would recognize a given set of data particular to each type of coin to measure surface scratchs, rub marks, lustre, strike etc...and compare that to the analyzed coin and arrive at a consistant grade. I also agree that if the TPG'S could get to some standard we would all benefit. Right now the grading game is just a battlefield for bussiness!  So I'm not the only one with insomnia!!!! Edited by Mike
03/10/2005 05:08 am
|
|
Forum Mom
 United States
5877 Posts |
In my opinion, the 70-point grading scale allowed for better descriptions of a coin's condition. Each numeric grade has an adjectival equivalent. The 70-point system, if used correctly, narrows down the condition much more. Although this doesn't eliminate the subjective side of grading, it reduces misunderstandings considerably.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
I have been part of this discussion in the past and no matter how it is described it is still based upon the subjective opinion of one or a few as to how to assign a grade to a coin .
Rick
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2884 Posts |
This is to Susan.....AU50,O.K. Then AU gets used again as 53,55 and 58. The same applies to some of the other Adjectival ratings. Again I'm not arguing against the system but think some of the numeric ratings are really splitting hairs. I often think about Sheldon devising the 70 point system for early large cents to provide calculable market values for them.I think the transition of its use on all other coinage has been to say the least a rocky road. But still, MS61? Give me a break!!!
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
I have to agree that there are a few that are a little silly - MS61 being one of them. I also don't use AU53. However, I do use AU55 and AU58, with AU58 being a "slider" grade. Wear is only evident under magnification and very bright luster is present.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2724 Posts |
There have been attempts at computer grading in the past. Rumors of NGC and PCGS tinkering with the idea have also floated around. The only real issue with a computer doing the grading is that a computer can only give technical grades. While this may be all fine and dandy with some, eye appeal is something that cannot be taken lightly. Take two coins graded the same and one being an ugly dark toning and the other blast white. The computer would spit out the same grade and same price. However in reality, the blast white coin will fetch a far greater price.
The major draw back to our current grading system is that it is market based. Coins should never grade higher from year to year. I have bought and sold many coins, and none left my hands better than it arrived. Coins can only stay the same or get worse. 70 points is a decent baseline, but I think that at some point we will have to move that number higher. Too many grey areas still. I know that most collectors do not like that thought, but until we move into better "coin" grading and stay away from what the market is doing, it will only get worse.
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by national dealer
There have been attempts at computer grading in the past. Rumors of NGC and PCGS tinkering with the idea have also floated around. The only real issue with a computer doing the grading is that a computer can only give technical grades. While this may be all fine and dandy with some, eye appeal is something that cannot be taken lightly. Take two coins graded the same and one being an ugly dark toning and the other blast white. The computer would spit out the same grade and same price. However in reality, the blast white coin will fetch a far greater price.
The major draw back to our current grading system is that it is market based. Coins should never grade higher from year to year. I have bought and sold many coins, and none left my hands better than it arrived. Coins can only stay the same or get worse. 70 points is a decent baseline, but I think that at some point we will have to move that number higher. Too many grey areas still. I know that most collectors do not like that thought, but until we move into better "coin" grading and stay away from what the market is doing, it will only get worse.
I definitely agree! |
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,058 |
|
Posted 03/10/2005 05:04 am
