Evolution of technical grading standards - who, when, how and...

BlindedByEgo

@Inside2 gave a neat history on his prior experience with INS and the development of technical grading standards in a previous thread.

I'd like to hear more about the transition away from the requirement that "mint state" shows no sign of circulation wear. I used to hear the term "cabinet friction" to rationalise high-point rub, but still mint state. Don't hear that too often these days - just a lot more about "market acceptable", and how a clearly worn coin can wind up in MS plastic

I'd love to hear some well-thought out opinions and experience on this - short of that any old diatribe would do.

Insider2

I'll write a more detailed treatment on this later.

For now, the first place I ever saw "Cabinet Friction" used to describe an AU coin (trace of wear at the time) was in a Bowers Rare Coin Review, Remember, only a little over fifty-six (?) years ago, the AU grade did not exist! Perhaps, one of our dealer members over 80 can fill in some blanks about that change.

CaptHenway

Sounds more like the "devolution" of technical grading standards, as they have gone steadily downhill.

I am currently writing an article for Coin Week on the early days of ANACS grading. Should be another couple of weeks.

KollectorKing

@Insider2 said:
I'll write a more detailed treatment on this later.

For now, the first place I ever saw "Cabinet Friction" used to describe an AU coin (trace of wear at the time) was in a Bowers Rare Coin Review, Remember, only a little over fifty-six (?) years ago, the AU grade did not exist! Perhaps, one of our dealer members over 80 can fill in some blanks about that change.

I’m sure QDB has written article(s) on this subject. I seem to recall reading about this in the monthly B&M magazines they sent out.

Insider2

@KollectorKing said:

@Insider2 said:
I'll write a more detailed treatment on this later.

For now, the first place I ever saw "Cabinet Friction" used to describe an AU coin (trace of wear at the time) was in a Bowers Rare Coin Review, Remember, only a little over fifty-six (?) years ago, the AU grade did not exist! Perhaps, one of our dealer members over 80 can fill in some blanks about that change.

I’m sure QDB has written article(s) on this subject. I seem to recall reading about this in the monthly B&M magazines they sent out.

This is not what I intended to write. More later.

I'm under the impression that QDB and 95% of the numismatists in this country don't have a CLUE what the original "Technical Grading System" was and how it was applied. The term "Technical Grading" was adopted by ANACS to describe their system when it moved from DC to CO. Tom has posted that he is writing an article about that grading system. Anyway, "true" technical grading is only used in a classroom to teach beginners. It has no relation to value, TPGS's, or the commercial system of grading used today that we all like to discuss.

PS The system in the First Edition of the ANA Grading Guide was NOT technical grading. It was a bastardized system that was given that name. As I posted earlier, it introduced several problems not present in the original technical system.

BlindedByEgo

Thank you all for your thoughtful input. I especially like the use of the term "devolution".

The chronology, along with anecdotal experiences, I find to be excessively interesting.

Paradisefound

Heavy discussion but I enjoyed it. Thank you @BlindedByEgo for bringing the subject up.

ricko

This topic has been under discussion for twenty years on this forum.... and still we have not achieved REAL grading standards... nor have I seen any valid intent to do so. Cheers, RickO

BlindedByEgo

@ricko said:
This topic has been under discussion for twenty years on this forum.... and still we have not achieved REAL grading standards... nor have I seen any valid intent to do so. Cheers, RickO

So true, but there wasn't a current thread and I thought it might generate more thoughtful input than, say, talking about the inevitable forum trolls or parking lot bowtie fantastics.

ricko

@BlindedByEgo.... You are 100% correct....and I will never discourage such discussion. My thoughts just keep returning to the final, optimum goal, of computerized grading. Yes, it will take a considerable software development effort, but achievable. Then, if people would like the 'eye appeal' factor, which I wholly dispute, since all people do not see beauty in the same way...then it could be a separate 'number/grade/letter/symbol.....The first TPG that develops and implements a proven software grading system, will corner the market and achieve the final word on grading. Cheers, RickO

BlindedByEgo

@ricko said:
@BlindedByEgo.... You are 100% correct....and I will never discourage such discussion. My thoughts just keep returning to the final, optimum goal, of computerized grading. Yes, it will take a considerable software development effort, but achievable. Then, if people would like the 'eye appeal' factor, which I wholly dispute, since all people do not see beauty in the same way...then it could be a separate 'number/grade/letter/symbol.....The first TPG that develops and implements a proven software grading system, will corner the market and achieve the final word on grading. Cheers, RickO

Add counterfeit detection, a die pair database, error classification, AT/NT detection and an algorithm that can determine the percentage of "market acceptability" and you'd have a winner!