If we were to go to a 100 point scale, I will continue to buy coins in holders with the old 70 point scale and others only because they have great eye appeal, otherwise I'm done.
It's a difficult question to answer, but at 50yrs of age, I may just wash my hands of it and sell.
Seems like it would be a very bad move to change the number scale at this point. I could see something where the grading services could work in if the coin is an A, B, or C for the grade.
As shown in the OP, the 100-point scale is ridiculous...maybe worse. It is entirely greed-based and produces nothing except increased submissions by really stupid people to TPGs. It's difficult to imagine anyone as informed and smart as Ron Guth coming up with this crap !
The number of intervals is trivial. It is the definition and spacing of intervals that requires standardization and rationalization.
The + fiasco drove me out of the registry and slowed down my collecting. I think any attempt at sucking all the graded coins back in for a re-grade will be met by more defections from the hobby. Then the next gimmick, like separate grades for eye-appeal, will finish off the death spiral for the third party graders.
@Smudge said:
Would be a Bonanza for tpgs so it may come to pass, but will make things more confusing and I still vote no. Not that my vote matters.
I think the move to a 100 point grading system in the US would trigger a mass exodus from coin collecting by those who are already growing tired of "stars", "pluses", "stickers", "gradeflation" and every other attempt to squeeze every last dime out of every last coin.
IMO, the present grading system will be changed. I heard few complaints when the + or * was added a while back.
My best guess is there will be a 100 point scale with decimals coming sometime in our future.
@BillJones said: "Or coin market end up like stamp market... in the dustbin. The Post Office Department issued so much junk that the collectors, “To hell with it,” and the dealers found so many ways to bury collectors in all of their purchases that the hobby just became depressing."
LOL, While any hobby depends on "new blood," the example you have chosen for the demise of stamps and coins forgets there is a huge difference between a collector and a numismatist/philatelist. I for one don't give a crap about anything after a certain time period in both fields. If the government never issues another coin or stamp there is enough out there already to keep a serious researcher busy for a century of continuous FUN!!
Having been collecting coins most of my life I am comfortable with the 70 point scale but understand that it can be difficult to comprehend for novice collectors as well as more experienced. Personally I think that going to a scale of 100 will just muddy up the waters and make things even more confusing...this is an 80 vs an 83? Same discussions that we have today!
When I was a kid and had the most joy in my collecting I knew of the Sheldon scale but was more concerned with finding the best coin in an XF grade vs trying to find a 45 vs a 43. If the scale is moved to 100 think about being a neophyte going to a show...you have the XF's, the 43's in the older slabs and the 74's (or ??) in the newer slabs. And how many dealers will treat older scale slabs will be how they treat the current slabs...high end when you buy, low end when you sell but with more opportunity to mark coins as low end.
The 70 scale is odd but it is what we have had for many many years and should be stuck with IMO.
Just some thoughts for a rainy Saturday afternoon!
If the gradings services go to a 100 grading scale, it would be to render their slabs obsolete to force collectors to send their coins back in to get the new grade. If it happens, I'll leave the hobby.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If they do it, I probably won't be buying much of significant value anymore. Not losing one's shorts as a collector already requires a fair amount of nuance within a single grade. Muddy that up even more, and the uncertainty and confusion will be a value/pricing disaster.
I have 6 disagrees on the OP already, and I don't really want to change to an 100 scale either as I have a lot of 70's that are probably only 99's...
I posted to point out that it is gaining momentum in the press and I would not be surprised if it eventually happens, mostly because of the money, and because most of the people in the world think of measuring in terms of decimals or base 10 scales.
I know if I brought home a 70 on a math test, as opposed to a 100, I would have been taken to the woodshed back then, too. LOL
Take a close look at this scale. The major change occurs at the 80 to 100. Most of it is due to half points. As in the old days, a half point will be like the top half of the numeric grade as the + sign that was used. 63+ = ?
See, not hard at all. I'll bet that any knowledgeable collector/dealer could start using this table TOMORROW. Sure, there will be wiggle room and more UNESSARY subjectivity - is it a 95 or 96? We solved this "subjectivity problem" in 1973 within the TRUE "technical grading system." If an expanded new grading scale gets traction in the future, I'll explain further.
Pretty sure this would be the nail in the coffin for me and coin collecting....TPG brought some stability in my opinion. At first came the loose and tight grading at times and then the need for CAC. Been doing this for 20+ years, change the grading scale and I’m out.
The 100 pt scale as presented by the OP adds nothing to the current system, it just renames the uncirculated grades. I found Rick Snow's PDS system he presented a couple years ago interesting in that it adds information. To me that is the dilemma with the current system, too little information, resulting in making guesses at "market" grading based on eye appeal, luster, die wear, etc.
Adding an extra grade or two between 64 and 65 doesn't really help. Better describing the aspects of the grade that make a coin fall between 64 and 65 does help.
@USAFRETWI said:
Pretty sure this would be the nail in the coffin for me and coin collecting....TPG brought some stability in my opinion. At first came the loose and tight grading at times and then the need for CAC. Been doing this for 20+ years, change the grading scale and I’m out.
My feelings exactly.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Good luck with a 100 point grading scale. I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have seen a GTG post with grade projections all over the place which I get because grading is so subjective. Frankly, a 100 point scale is a huge joke. Why don’t we just cut to the chase and go on a 500 point scale! All I would like to see is more consistent grading. Is it really to much to ask?
@mustangmanbob said:
So, what would be an 92.6* versus and 92.7- graded coin.
What about 105 graded coin (5 points extra credit for ??????
The coin graded 92.6* would carry a price guide value of $5,396. The coin graded 92.7 would carry a price guide value of $156,780 because it is a top pop.
Grading is all about money. Since most collectors can't grade (all you have to do is look at some guess the grade threads from this forum to show this) the plastic will rule if/when there is a new grading scale just as it does today. That assumes any collectors are left to care about it and make a market.
the correct answer is that the tpg's are dying. Nothing will save them , this would only represent an acceleration of the decline.
It was always a good idea to grade coins for people , it was never a good idea to monetize it to the degree we are at. Collectors are like dairy cows , the tpg business model is to be the milking machine.
Although to be fair that business model seems to apply to everything now
@Baley said:
It makes absolutely NO sense to skip from 58 to 80. That would make the silly, illogical current "line" between Uncirculated and "Almost" into a giant chasm.
If I were going to promote a 100 point system for grading coins, I'd leave the current 70 points in place, get rid of the "line" at 60 so there could be 60-64 coins with "rub", (and ugly coins with no wear below 60) and have grades over 70 and to 100 would be logarithmic increase in Quality due to outstanding eye appeal, usually because of toning, which can multiply the value.
except for the people who HATE toning and consider toning a decrease in value.
Many people collect more than just U.S. coins. If you collect ancients, for example, the scale is 100 years old with just VG, F, VF, XF, AU (a recent add) and MS, no numbers. Some people still use FDC rather than MS. NGC uses a 5 point scale for "strike" and "surface" quality. People who buy ancients and U.S. type navigate both systems without difficulty.
There is a newer Asian TPGS Hua Xia that uses a 100 point scale and appears to be THE place to go with ancient Chinese coins. And, again, people navigate both systems.
That said, I think of all possible 100 point scales, the jump from 58 to 80 is the dumbest. It essentially creates a system that lacks linearity. There will be a 25 point gap between VF(25) and AU and then a 30 point gap from AU to UNC. Why not a more linear 100 point scale?
Or, as someone else mentioned, why not a more condensed linear 25 point scale? I mean, what is the point of having all the Sheldon numbers that really don't exist. It's already a bit asymmetric with grades from 60 to 70 extant, but all those gaps lower. Why no XF 43? XF 48?
Seller's grading:
45 ...........Somewhat round but completely smooth
58 ........... Mostly round, a trace of design is present
61 .........Round, identifiable
62 ..........Date discernible, design smooth
63 ..........Details begin to show
65 ......... Full rim, lettering is readable
66 ............Some high points show
68 ............Some luster or "shine", most of high points are not smooth.
Buyer's grading:
12 ..........All details and high points are clear and bold
20 ...........Some mint luster, almost new
30 .........Full blazing luster, everything is bold
40 .............Blazing luster with mint "frost"
45 .......... As above with no bag marks
50 ...........Blazing luster, full mint frost, no bag marks, field must have mirror finish, pristine and superlative
53 ...... Coin will draw blood if touched on high points
63......... Imaginary condition. If coin has left mint, it is circulated.
See, not hard at all. I'll bet that any knowledgeable collector/dealer could start using this table TOMORROW. Sure, there will be wiggle room and more UNESSARY subjectivity - is it a 95 or 96? We solved this "subjectivity problem" in 1973 within the TRUE "technical grading system." If an expanded new grading scale gets traction in the future, I'll explain further.
Tomorrow? How about today? The "Guth" scale is already in use, just with different numbers. Sure, PCGS doesn't use 'pluses' on 60, 61, and 69 coins, but it's not much of a leap to think about those. The "Guth" system proposes 21 grades for MS coins. The current PCGS version of the Sheldon system uses 18 grades AND has pluses for 45, 50, 53, 55, and 58. So the Guth system actually reduces the total number of grades currently in use by 2.
The only 'real' change is to move all the MS grades arbitrarily to start at 80, so the grades can end at 100 and no longer use the 'plus' grades and instead use whole numbers for those 'in between' coins.
The two systems could easily co-exist. Got an MS-66+, when then that's just a new MS-93.
@TommyType described it well as being similar to converting Fahrenheit to Celsius.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@wooglout said:
I think it'd make more sense like the below scales (eliminates the disjoint with AU-58 --> MS-80)
Thoughts?? I kinda like it!!
edit: I actually emailed Mr. Guth about this a couple days ago to see what he thinks. No response or offer to make me a partner, yet!
I think Guth was trying to minimize confusion. Under his proposal any grade 60-70 would clearly be using the Sheldon scale. Any grade 80 and up would obviously be the 100pt scale. I.e., no matter what number grade is being discussed the scale is understood.
@Insider2 said:
Unfortunately, there are very few folks posting here who will have any influence on how coins are graded in the future.
This may or may not be true. PCGS would be wise to stop and think "who" made them:!? Us collectors....that's who. Without us they have nothing! So it would all depend on how many are like myself and would not have their coins regraded. To me this would be a STUPID move! I would stay (reluctantly) if my current slabbed coins were still good in the Registry. If not I am gone! And I don't feel that I would be alone. I think a LOT of collectors like myself would see going to another grading scale would just be yet another way of fleecing us out of yet more money that would do us absolutely no good!
@DIMEMAN said:
I think a LOT of collectors like myself would see going to another grading scale would just be yet another way of fleecing us out of yet more money that would do us absolutely no good!
Another way? How is PCGS currently fleecing you (and a LOT of others) out of money?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The interesting thing about the 100 point system is that it does not solve any of the hobbies problems. A new point system would only stuff the fat cats pockets with more money.
I don't think that creating a longer grade scale is going to "fix" the problem. Grading is supposed to be subjective based on a known perfect or near perfect coin from the mint. Of course all coins begin to acquire wear and damage from the moment of creation. If 70 grades cannot categorize any coin, 100 will not be better. Look how many opinions we have about toning, natural vs artificial. Our egos and self centeredness interfere with us agreeing on perceived beauty. IMHO Peace Roy
A shift to a 100 point scale might create a special opportunity to tweak the outstanding grading guarantees. Like the guaranty on anything graded 60-70 expires in a year. Not that I would expect such a thing, of course.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@DIMEMAN said:
I think a LOT of collectors like myself would see going to another grading scale would just be yet another way of fleecing us out of yet more money that would do us absolutely no good!
Another way? How is PCGS currently fleecing you (and a LOT of others) out of money?
For starters....the $12 reholder fee when you send a coin in for attribution that is already in a PCGS.
@DIMEMAN said:
I think a LOT of collectors like myself would see going to another grading scale would just be yet another way of fleecing us out of yet more money that would do us absolutely no good!
Another way? How is PCGS currently fleecing you (and a LOT of others) out of money?
For starters....the $12 reholder fee when you send a coin in for attribution that is already in a PCGS.
How is that fleecing you? Don't they have to reholder the coin?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Second; It's just a new Mint State grading system. No change for really neat circ coins
Big mess for Mint State coins and getting your mind around it .
Comments
interesting to say the least
I invite you to explore a selection of coins for sale at the link provided below.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LmQTZyt2cqSrxqc89
If we were to go to a 100 point scale, I will continue to buy coins in holders with the old 70 point scale and others only because they have great eye appeal, otherwise I'm done.
It's a difficult question to answer, but at 50yrs of age, I may just wash my hands of it and sell.
Later, Paul.
Seems like it would be a very bad move to change the number scale at this point. I could see something where the grading services could work in if the coin is an A, B, or C for the grade.
Metrics are easier on the brain. Then there is eye appeal.
Now I will have that song in my head all day long.
CC
As shown in the OP, the 100-point scale is ridiculous...maybe worse. It is entirely greed-based and produces nothing except increased submissions by really stupid people to TPGs. It's difficult to imagine anyone as informed and smart as Ron Guth coming up with this crap !
The number of intervals is trivial. It is the definition and spacing of intervals that requires standardization and rationalization.
Yeah, they should Standardize the star rating system for movies, and for Yelp restaurant reviews.
What we need are objective , scientific criteria to measure OPINIONS. right?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Then try thinking of "Revolution" which also makes some sense.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
The + fiasco drove me out of the registry and slowed down my collecting. I think any attempt at sucking all the graded coins back in for a re-grade will be met by more defections from the hobby. Then the next gimmick, like separate grades for eye-appeal, will finish off the death spiral for the third party graders.
Commems and Early Type
I think the move to a 100 point grading system in the US would trigger a mass exodus from coin collecting by those who are already growing tired of "stars", "pluses", "stickers", "gradeflation" and every other attempt to squeeze every last dime out of every last coin.
IMO, the present grading system will be changed. I heard few complaints when the + or * was added a while back.
My best guess is there will be a 100 point scale with decimals coming sometime in our future.
@BillJones said: "Or coin market end up like stamp market... in the dustbin. The Post Office Department issued so much junk that the collectors, “To hell with it,” and the dealers found so many ways to bury collectors in all of their purchases that the hobby just became depressing."
LOL, While any hobby depends on "new blood," the example you have chosen for the demise of stamps and coins forgets there is a huge difference between a collector and a numismatist/philatelist. I for one don't give a crap about anything after a certain time period in both fields. If the government never issues another coin or stamp there is enough out there already to keep a serious researcher busy for a century of continuous FUN!!
Having been collecting coins most of my life I am comfortable with the 70 point scale but understand that it can be difficult to comprehend for novice collectors as well as more experienced. Personally I think that going to a scale of 100 will just muddy up the waters and make things even more confusing...this is an 80 vs an 83? Same discussions that we have today!
When I was a kid and had the most joy in my collecting I knew of the Sheldon scale but was more concerned with finding the best coin in an XF grade vs trying to find a 45 vs a 43. If the scale is moved to 100 think about being a neophyte going to a show...you have the XF's, the 43's in the older slabs and the 74's (or ??) in the newer slabs. And how many dealers will treat older scale slabs will be how they treat the current slabs...high end when you buy, low end when you sell but with more opportunity to mark coins as low end.
The 70 scale is odd but it is what we have had for many many years and should be stuck with IMO.
Just some thoughts for a rainy Saturday afternoon!
K
Unfortunately, there are very few folks posting here who will have any influence on how coins are graded in the future.
The 70 point Sheldon scale is quirky and a little off beat sorta like coin collectors
Changing the metric used in grading will ensure that new collectors will be getting an extra dose of bewilderment when they approach the hobby IMHO
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
If the gradings services go to a 100 grading scale, it would be to render their slabs obsolete to force collectors to send their coins back in to get the new grade. If it happens, I'll leave the hobby.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If they do it, I probably won't be buying much of significant value anymore. Not losing one's shorts as a collector already requires a fair amount of nuance within a single grade. Muddy that up even more, and the uncertainty and confusion will be a value/pricing disaster.
I have 6 disagrees on the OP already, and I don't really want to change to an 100 scale either as I have a lot of 70's that are probably only 99's...
I posted to point out that it is gaining momentum in the press and I would not be surprised if it eventually happens, mostly because of the money, and because most of the people in the world think of measuring in terms of decimals or base 10 scales.
I know if I brought home a 70 on a math test, as opposed to a 100, I would have been taken to the woodshed back then, too. LOL
The recently proposed system started here: https://info606505.wixsite.com/website/blank-page
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Take a close look at this scale. The major change occurs at the 80 to 100. Most of it is due to half points. As in the old days, a half point will be like the top half of the numeric grade as the + sign that was used. 63+ = ?
See, not hard at all. I'll bet that any knowledgeable collector/dealer could start using this table TOMORROW. Sure, there will be wiggle room and more UNESSARY subjectivity - is it a 95 or 96? We solved this "subjectivity problem" in 1973 within the TRUE "technical grading system." If an expanded new grading scale gets traction in the future, I'll explain further.
Just put both grades on the holder. Here's a quick mockup for you.
SEE ?? Right there is the reason it's a stupid idea.
Anyone familiar with the series can see that that is a pure-ass 91 and would be a rip.
I think it'd make more sense like the below scales (eliminates the disjoint with AU-58 --> MS-80)
OLD ------- NEW
MS-60 = MS-60
MS-60+ = MS-61
MS-60.5 = MS-62
MS-60.5+ = MS-63
MS-61 = MS-64
MS-61+ = MS-65
MS-61.5. = MS-66
MS-61.5+ = MS-67
...
MS-69 = MS-96
MS-69+ = MS-97
MS-69.5. = MS-98
MS-69.5+ = MS-99
MS-70 = MS-100
Now if you only want 21 MS grade points, you could use the same scale above, but eliminate the odd numbers such that:
OLD --------- NEW
MS-60(+) = MS-60(+)
MS-60.5(+) = MS-62(+)
MS-61(+) = MS-64(+)
MS-61.5(+) = MS-66(+)
...
MS-69(+) = MS-96(+)
MS-69.5(+) = MS-98(+)
MS-70 = MS-100
Thoughts?? I kinda like it!!
edit: I actually emailed Mr. Guth about this a couple days ago to see what he thinks. No response or offer to make me a partner, yet!
I always wondered why there are no 69+ grades.
Pretty sure this would be the nail in the coffin for me and coin collecting....TPG brought some stability in my opinion. At first came the loose and tight grading at times and then the need for CAC. Been doing this for 20+ years, change the grading scale and I’m out.
Take the 100 point system and shove it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The 100 pt scale as presented by the OP adds nothing to the current system, it just renames the uncirculated grades. I found Rick Snow's PDS system he presented a couple years ago interesting in that it adds information. To me that is the dilemma with the current system, too little information, resulting in making guesses at "market" grading based on eye appeal, luster, die wear, etc.
Adding an extra grade or two between 64 and 65 doesn't really help. Better describing the aspects of the grade that make a coin fall between 64 and 65 does help.
My feelings exactly.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
So, what would be an 92.6* versus and 92.7- graded coin.
What about 105 graded coin (5 points extra credit for ??????
Good luck with a 100 point grading scale. I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have seen a GTG post with grade projections all over the place which I get because grading is so subjective. Frankly, a 100 point scale is a huge joke. Why don’t we just cut to the chase and go on a 500 point scale! All I would like to see is more consistent grading. Is it really to much to ask?
The coin graded 92.6* would carry a price guide value of $5,396. The coin graded 92.7 would carry a price guide value of $156,780 because it is a top pop.
Grading is all about money. Since most collectors can't grade (all you have to do is look at some guess the grade threads from this forum to show this) the plastic will rule if/when there is a new grading scale just as it does today. That assumes any collectors are left to care about it and make a market.
The White Album version...
CC
the correct answer is that the tpg's are dying. Nothing will save them , this would only represent an acceleration of the decline.
It was always a good idea to grade coins for people , it was never a good idea to monetize it to the degree we are at. Collectors are like dairy cows , the tpg business model is to be the milking machine.
Although to be fair that business model seems to apply to everything now
except for the people who HATE toning and consider toning a decrease in value.
What kind of conundrum would be raised by a 99 gold CAC?
I see the 100 point system being implemented right after the US changes over to the metric system, so say around 2068?
That said, I think of all possible 100 point scales, the jump from 58 to 80 is the dumbest. It essentially creates a system that lacks linearity. There will be a 25 point gap between VF(25) and AU and then a 30 point gap from AU to UNC. Why not a more linear 100 point scale?
Or, as someone else mentioned, why not a more condensed linear 25 point scale? I mean, what is the point of having all the Sheldon numbers that really don't exist. It's already a bit asymmetric with grades from 60 to 70 extant, but all those gaps lower. Why no XF 43? XF 48?
Just adjust the scale.
Seller's grading:
45 ...........Somewhat round but completely smooth
58 ........... Mostly round, a trace of design is present
61 .........Round, identifiable
62 ..........Date discernible, design smooth
63 ..........Details begin to show
65 ......... Full rim, lettering is readable
66 ............Some high points show
68 ............Some luster or "shine", most of high points are not smooth.
Buyer's grading:
12 ..........All details and high points are clear and bold
20 ...........Some mint luster, almost new
30 .........Full blazing luster, everything is bold
40 .............Blazing luster with mint "frost"
45 .......... As above with no bag marks
50 ...........Blazing luster, full mint frost, no bag marks, field must have mirror finish, pristine and superlative
53 ...... Coin will draw blood if touched on high points
63......... Imaginary condition. If coin has left mint, it is circulated.
So, let me get this straight:
From Poor through AU, nothing changes.
Basal Mint State changes from MS-60, to MS-80 (leaving nothing between AU-58 and MS-80)
For Mint State, instead of one-point increments, you have two-point increments
Beyond that, what do you get, other than total confusion?
As for me, I vote a resounding NO to the idea!!!!!
Steve
Don't we have an electoral college here?
Tomorrow? How about today? The "Guth" scale is already in use, just with different numbers. Sure, PCGS doesn't use 'pluses' on 60, 61, and 69 coins, but it's not much of a leap to think about those. The "Guth" system proposes 21 grades for MS coins. The current PCGS version of the Sheldon system uses 18 grades AND has pluses for 45, 50, 53, 55, and 58. So the Guth system actually reduces the total number of grades currently in use by 2.
The only 'real' change is to move all the MS grades arbitrarily to start at 80, so the grades can end at 100 and no longer use the 'plus' grades and instead use whole numbers for those 'in between' coins.
The two systems could easily co-exist. Got an MS-66+, when then that's just a new MS-93.
@TommyType described it well as being similar to converting Fahrenheit to Celsius.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I think Guth was trying to minimize confusion. Under his proposal any grade 60-70 would clearly be using the Sheldon scale. Any grade 80 and up would obviously be the 100pt scale. I.e., no matter what number grade is being discussed the scale is understood.
FWIW, I'm with the don't-like-it crowd.
Lance.
This may or may not be true. PCGS would be wise to stop and think "who" made them:!? Us collectors....that's who. Without us they have nothing! So it would all depend on how many are like myself and would not have their coins regraded. To me this would be a STUPID move! I would stay (reluctantly) if my current slabbed coins were still good in the Registry. If not I am gone! And I don't feel that I would be alone. I think a LOT of collectors like myself would see going to another grading scale would just be yet another way of fleecing us out of yet more money that would do us absolutely no good!
Another way? How is PCGS currently fleecing you (and a LOT of others) out of money?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The interesting thing about the 100 point system is that it does not solve any of the hobbies problems. A new point system would only stuff the fat cats pockets with more money.
I don't think that creating a longer grade scale is going to "fix" the problem. Grading is supposed to be subjective based on a known perfect or near perfect coin from the mint. Of course all coins begin to acquire wear and damage from the moment of creation. If 70 grades cannot categorize any coin, 100 will not be better. Look how many opinions we have about toning, natural vs artificial. Our egos and self centeredness interfere with us agreeing on perceived beauty. IMHO Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
A shift to a 100 point scale might create a special opportunity to tweak the outstanding grading guarantees. Like the guaranty on anything graded 60-70 expires in a year. Not that I would expect such a thing, of course.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
For starters....the $12 reholder fee when you send a coin in for attribution that is already in a PCGS.
I think 1000 points with decimals. Add letters and symbols as well. Or maybe stick with the Sheldon scale that works pretty good too.
How is that fleecing you? Don't they have to reholder the coin?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
First : I didn't read all the postings
Second; It's just a new Mint State grading system. No change for really neat circ coins
Big mess for Mint State coins and getting your mind around it .
Just imagine how big the pricing guides will get with all the new grade columns!
Wonder how any of the grade guarantees will fare if a 70 regrades to a 99 or a 65 to an 89, etc.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101