PLEASE HELP! Do coins actually have a grade? A GRADE - NOT A VALUE!
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I answered this question this way:
@Insider2 said: Coins do actually have grades, it's the humans who can get it wrong on occasion.
Another member replied: "You really think so? In all seriousness, I'd love to hear why."
What would you say to him/her to reply to this:
"I can accept that they have a diameter, a reed count, a mass, or a certain composition. These things are independently measurable and consistent over time. I would also accept that they have a certain degree of strike, quality of luster, and measurable surface damage. I have not seen where any of these last three definable parameters are directly correlated to a grade..... at least not one that has ever been consistently applied (I like clean cheeks, you like clean fields.....) As for eye appeal....... that's 99% subjective..... and like all fashions or trends, is by definition ephemeral."
I'll comment later.
Comments
Sounds like a smart guy to me.
Dave Bowers always said; "You need to take the coin on balance" I guess he's saying it may have this and may have that, but on balance is it pleasing? Just like the Coin World "eye appeal" article.
others may disagree.
I agree the original poster is smart and his post shows thought. I'm curious how other members might reply.
Obviously, I believe it is the knowledge, subjectivity, and skill examiner that determines how the "fixed" characteristics are quantified. For example, if a rim file is missed the coin will not be graded correctly. The other problem that jumps right out is the slipping standards that have virtually removed the quality of a coin's "STRIKE" (one of this poster's three characteristics) from the grading equation!
Are you buying or selling ... that is the question when it comes to the OPINION on grade. In the days of raw coins coins would be bought as, say, Fine, and sold as Very Fine. Because most collectors can't grade this persisted as the way business was done for many years.
With the advent of slabs something new was needed to get the buy-sell margin up. Ah, yes ... stickers!
Even C's get degrees...
Yes coins have grades but not all are equal in the real world of how much money they will make at the same numerical grade.
I think coins have a certain level of preservation. That is enough for me much of the time.
Humans like to assign grades as a measure of this preservation and also to give a rough sense of value.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
To really know the grade you would of had to follow it from the day struck.
This debate is why computer grading using strict facts such as actual wear is unlikely to ever take hold. Yes you can tell the computer to ignore a certain amount of wear ("friction"), but that process again makes the whole thing subjective. We could redefine the standards such that MS means 98.2% MS, but I doubt dealers or collectors would accept that. I used to have a personal subjective standard that if I could see the wear on an AU-58, it wasn't AU-58. In my opinion, I needed an expert to point out the wear on those examples. Those days are long gone.
A single grade combines several complicated factors into one number. Each variable should/could be measured separately.
I said in another thread, and I really wasn’t joking too much, ACG had it right
Wear
Marks
Color
Strike
Luster
Eye appeal
How each of these scores leads to a market grade and some are more subjective than others.
No. Absolutely not. Coins do not have a grade, unless they have been assigned a grade.
Here are three examples from my collection. I have not graded them, do not want to grade them, and have not paid for a professional opinion of grades. They are raw, and will remain raw. These coins do not have grades, they are gradeless coins
The above quote implies there is one set of standards that all professional and amateur graders will grade to, and there is no universal standard
.
The old-fashioned words to describe a coin's wear are good enough for me. The numbers make rocket science out of something that shouldn't be rocket science. Let the price be the only number to deal with about a coin.
Poor, Fair, AG, G, VG, F, VF, choice VF, EF, choice EF, AU, choice AU, Unc, Choice Unc, Gem Unc, Superb gem Unc. are the only descriptors needed for grading business strike collector coins in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Here we go
For the sake of answering the posters questions please leave a coin's VALUE out of this.
In a precise and simple grading system VALUE has absolutely nothing to do with the coin's actual condition! It is just one of the biggest factors (PROBLEMS) along with eye appeal that introduces the largest degree of subjectivity to grading a coin.
LOL, you can "grade" the quality of a banana without knowing what it sells for or the fact that its skin has dark spots and it is not attractive.
Coins may or may not have a grade, but they defiantly have a price..
Actually, a particular coin may have several prices and that's why I don't wish to confuse the issue with value. Note that the poster did not mention money, value, or price.
In philosophy and science they use the terms intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties to describe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)
Wear, Marks, Color, Strike, and Luster are all intrinsic properties. They exist as part of the coin. Eye Appeal is dependent on the perceptions of the viewer. So if the grade is at all dependent on an extrinsic property, then the grade itself is an extrinsic property.
I would argue that items like marks, color, strike, and luster undeniaby exist as properties, but are not so clearly defined in absolute terms. As a result, we have a limited ability to assign a grade to a coin in the absence of all other coins. We don't have a quantitative way to measure the strike of a coin or the wear of the coin. Those terms are generally defined in relative terms. That usually means a coin has a good strike if it has a good strike for that type of coin or how good the strike could have been with some assumptions about the minting process. So even though these properties are intrinsic, they are only measured in relative terms, often relative to a "perfect" coin. Even though the property is inherent to the coin, the values we assign to describe that property are still relative.
Edit: Saying grading is relative does not invalidate it or devalue it. If you take Entropy for example, it is similar. It's much easier to measure/quantify differences in entropy than to say anything about entropy an an absolute way or for a given single state. However, using entropy in thermodynamics is extremely valuable and lots of technical and scientific accomplishments would be impossible without it.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
For proof coins:
Proof, choice proof, gem proof, superb gem proof. If the proof has wear from handling then it gets a details grade, such as "proof, extremely fine details."
I don't believe in "net grading." Coins that have been cleaned or are damaged are described as such. "cleaned, extra fine details", for example. No calling a cleaned extra fine a very fine allowed. Impairment should ALWAYS be noted. Confounding the grading with the net grading scheme causes my eyes to glaze over.
The number wheel has been invented so i'm not holding my breath that old-fashioned grading will be making a comeback. If I started a grading company I wouldn't want to use numbers. It's too much like rocket science. The hobby needs a lift to attract new members. Getting rid of the 1-70 grading scale would be a good thing for the hobby.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Coins can have multiple grades, by assigner and by point in time.
I could tear the OP apart, but all it would do would be to start another fight. Like it or not these factors lower or limit how high the grade can be.
The first two can keep a mark-free, straight from the dies coin from grading any higher than MS-64 or 65. There are many issues that fall into this category. Among the commemorative coins, the Philadelphai Sesquecentennial half dollar is limited in grade because it was very poor made. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the Monroe commemorative.
The 1855-C gold dollar can't exist in much of anything beyound MS-62, because the coin was made very poorly. It was "struck in MS-62."
There are many other examples.
You can sit around a proclaim that grading is subjective and impossible to pin point, but when you do, you might as well say that grading useless. The scammers who cheated people out of millions of dollars in the late 1970s and early to mid '80s can’t be condemned because grading is “subjective” and given that, no one’s opinion is wrong. That is utter nonsense.
The purest use of grading goes to the Early Copper specialists who compile condition census information about the early large cents and to a lesser extent, half cents. Their goal is to create a list that provides collectors with an idea as what level of quality the finest examples are. Money and prices are not the primary objective in these studies.
Pre slabs, when I was in the shop and someone asked what GRADE it was, I told them the PRICE.
e.g. "It is GRADED $250.00"
Those days are long gone.
Coins do not have grades they have a state of preservation, a state that is impacted (sometimes for good sometimes for bad) each time a coin comes into contact or ownership of a human. Humans have a need for order and to define thing so we assign grades to coins to meet our need; the problem is that our grades are highly subjective and that is where the problems begin.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Thank goodness!
There was dealer, the late Dick Picker, who did that many years ago. He just priced things with no grades. If you were not careful, you could get caught in a trap. It is best to grade the piece and make comments about the defects. Honest dealers will do that.
What @BillJones stated about EAC grading, which uses specialist knowledge about early US copper to grade.
Bust half specialist Sheridan Downey will often disagree with the TPG grade in his auctions, and his opinion carries more weight because he understands the series.
Without universal grading standards, a coin cannot have an intrinsic grade because of inconsistent professional opinions of grades.
Excellent post. You have basically come extremely close to explaining how the old, precise, obsolete, and hated "true Technical Grading System" (Never used by the ANA in CO) worked.
Here is something to think about as it introduces subjectivity:
"...if it has a good strike for that type of coin or how good the strike could have been with some assumptions about the minting process. So even though these properties are intrinsic, they are only measured in relative terms.
With true technical grading used for internal records and then at the first TPGS in Wash, DC. none of this "fluff" matters. We didn't care why or how the details on the high parts of ANY coin from ANY time period or ANY method of manufacture caused and original coin yo be weak. All we needed to determine was whether the strike was strong enough to be out of the ordinary and therefore necessary to mentioned. Weak enough out of the ordinary to be necessary to mention. or just the normal way the coins come and not necessary to mention. With a very short period of time, I have found it is easy to teach anyone to pick one of these 3 choices **and be correct. Thus, relative terms such as flat, weak, normal, and strong may not be as relative as one might guess if educated folks had to pick from an image or a coin in hand. I'll prove this by posting a poll - Guess the quality of strike! Someone keep reminding me please.
I disagree. Each of those coins has a grade that will be determined from an image (not reliable) and the opinion of each of us here. That grade has nothing to do with your desire to keep them raw.
No one can disagree, AND THAT FACT is the problem in a dozen words!
In those days you could funnel the "entropy" in to order. Money is always lurking about the disorder.
@BillJones said: "I could tear the OP apart, but all it would do would be to start another fight.""
There is a difference between a discussion and an argument.
"Like it or not these factors lower or limit how high the grade can be.
strike
luster
number of surface marks
rub
damage beyond normal wear and tear
The first two can keep a mark-free, straight from the dies coin from grading any higher than MS-64 or 65. There are many issues that fall into this category. Among the commemorative coins, the Philadelphai Sesquecentennial half dollar is limited in grade because it was very poor made. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the Monroe commemorative."
Is this what you call a disagreement that might start an argument. LOL. **I'll agree to everything here that you posted EXCEPT for the fact that some coins that are not fully struck are being graded above MS-64 because they are seldom found with the normal strike found on other dates in the series.
The 1855-C gold dollar can't exist in much of anything beyound MS-62, because the coin was made very poorly. It was "struck in MS-62."
LOL. Well, you will get an argument here. IMO, this is pure, uninformed, "commercial grading" nonsense. There has NEVER been a coin that dropped from a press ANYWHERE, or at ANY TIME (including mint errors) that was an MS-62. Any member of CU disagree with my statement?
"You can sit around a proclaim that grading is subjective and impossible to pin point, but when you do, you might as well say that grading useless. The scammers who cheated people out of millions of dollars in the late 1970s and early to mid '80s can’t be condemned because grading is “subjective” and given that, no one’s opinion is wrong. That is utter nonsense."
Grading is subjective due to the way it has evolved in the commercial market. Anyone disagree that the present grading system is subjective due to many factors - including the experience of the person grading the coin?
"The purest use of grading goes to the Early Copper specialists who compile condition census information about the early large cents and to a lesser extent, half cents. Their goal is to create a list that provides collectors with an idea as what level of quality the finest examples are. Money and prices are not the primary objective in these studies."
The ONLY PURE system of grading was "canned" long ago. That was the TRUE Technical Grading System." If anyone thinks that the "folly" of net grading used by the EAC and admitted to be, shall I say "special" with hardly any relationship to the grading done by anyone (including the major TPGS's) as stated in a Grading Guide written by EAC copper specialists, I feel sorry for them and any of the collectors who are confused by the appearance of a "net graded" coin.
I have always felt that EAC net grading opens up a can of worms. I get it, when a VF coin is downgraded due to some imperfections, but who is the great wizard that decides if a rim nick is more offensive than a corrosion spot, some verdigris, or whatever? Then, to decide how much the coin should be downgraded. Then finally, where does the coin fit in the CC? I know that certain things bother the heck out of me, while other things are no big deal. Another person has other ideas as to what flaws bother them. Just call it a VF with issues and go from there.
@Insider2 said:
"I disagree. Each of those coins has a grade that will be determined from an image (not reliable) and the opinion of each of us here. That grade has nothing to do with your desire to keep them raw."
With respect, to add something constructive to this debate, I fully understand forum members have their own idea about the obverse grade of these coins, which undoubtedly will vary considerably. But these are opinions of what the grade should be, and do not represent the true technical grade.
If I understand the OP question correctly "Do coins actually have a grade?" This would be an intrinsic grade of a coin, inherent to the technical attributes of the coin, and would not vary over time.
Without full agreement of technical grading standards by professionals at TPG's, a coin could not have an Intrinsic grade. I don't believe the TPG's even want strict grading standards, as re-submission revenue would go down if coins are graded only once.
Some of the above was stated in these words:
"Coins can have multiple grades, by assigner and by point in time."
@Insider2 response: "No one can disagree, AND THAT FACT is the problem in a dozen words!"
Some people don't know how much they like a restaurant until they've read the Yelp reviews.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Insider2, you and I shall forever disagree in the 1855-C gold dollar. With a mintage of almost 10,000 pieces, that has to have been at least one piece that is better than than MS-61or 62, yet PCGS has not graded one higher than 61 and for NGC 62. Other Charlotte and Dahlonega coins with lower mintages are know in higher grades, but not that one.
No, you can't. Some people like them very firm and a little green. Others want a medium yellow, and others like them ripe, soft, sweet, and a little brown. Some few only eat them black and mushy. None of them are "wrong"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
A grade is an artificial 'construct' and is by its nature, subjective.
I would rather a coin dealer shoot me a firm price on a coin because it is so much easier to make a decision.
Grades are a bunch of blather. Sometimes indicative, but never absolute.
Can anyone "purely technical grade" a movie, a hotel, or used car? No.
One can only apply "generally understood principles of Quality" when evaluating, well, anything, coins included. And it's all ok.
Because opinions and market preferences (and yes, prices) will vary. Not quite understanding the continual need to debate the concept, except it's kind of fun and a bit of a challenge to reduce complex concepts to a few words typed into a cellphone on a Sunday morning over coffee.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think you might be confounding relative and qualitative. Something can be relative and extremely quantitative. I'm saying that the statement,"This coin has exactly 0.5 grams of metal removed through the normal wear process, and has 25% of the details removes" is a relative statement. It is also quantitative. You cannot know how many of the details are gone without also looking at a different coin to compare it to. There has to be a standard to compare it to, real or fictional. If a grade was truly inherent to a coin, then comparison wouldn't be required. Based on that I'm saying that grading is not actually a description of the coin itself, it's describing the coin relative to some standard. It's an overly philosophical argument, but I think that's point we're at...lol.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
A lot of interesting discussion... Numismatists and numismatic investors attempt to draw a very fine line with a blunt instrument. Subjectivity widens the bandwidth.
Does a coin have a grade, in the absence of a transaction (where two parties agree)? I'm going to say no.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I have always felt that a coin's grade is due to wear from the way it was minted, not the strike nor damage pmd. The coin's grade(less than uncirculated) should only be affected by wear. Then if not gradeable due to damage, sobeit. The strike should only affect value not grade. Again, this is my opinion. Now for uncirculated coins, all factors are needed to be judged to form an accurate opinion, which all coin grading is, an opinion.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
My only (questionably) useful input:
I think we shouldn't be surprised that a coin grader has a higher regard for the results of his profession than a "layman" might.
A doctor is more impressed with the state of medical science than his patients....programmers are more proud of their software than the users.....and so on.
The standards are fairly clear; I know dealers who are constantly bashing the grading services claiming grading is totally subjective but when there is $$$ to be made by buying and selling those same dealers are quick to call their numismatic material high end and quality. There are tough examples of coins that could go one way or another, but most others that have a consensus on realistic grading.
All coins have a definite grade.
The plastic may or may not reflect that grade accurately.
If an 1855-C gold dollar is as struck with original surfaces, the ONLY THINGS I can think of for limiting its grade to MS-62 are these:
Let's please see this "wonder coin" that I have not seen before.
@jesbroken said: "I have always felt that a coin's grade is due to wear from the way it was minted, not the strike nor damage pmd. The coin's grade (less than uncirculated) should only be affected by wear. Then if not gradeable due to damage, sobeit."
You have an excellent understanding of grading. That was the key to Technical Grading in the ranges below Unc.!
PS Hopefully the two members giving me LOL's will answer in a post so others can LEARN SOMETHING FROM THEM.
You started a thread about Opinions about Opinions.
There will be no Facts to Learn, only more...
Opinions.
To think a specific 1821 quarter with its own history can hve "Correct" grade and any other opinion is "wrong" would be...
Wait for it...
FOLLY!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Yes, wrong to folks who cannot grade or who net grade.
Additionally, the grade assigned by some folks to some coins is correct. Example: put that 1821 in a PCGS slab. If it beans, for all extent and purposes it has been correctly graded by commercial standards and a vast majority of professionals will probably agree on the grade. The opinion of the other few does not matter one bit.
Coins obviously have different states of preservation (i.e. grades). Whether humans can agree on the subjective label we use to describe that state of preservation is a different matter.
And that was my point:@Insider2 said: Coins do actually have grades, it's the humans who can get it wrong on occasion.
This was disagreed with!
Well, the idea here has always been interesting to me and I instantly recognized the comments in the OP as being my own.
I think perhaps the OP equates my certainty that coins don't "have" grades with a belief that grading isn't useful.
Of course it's useful. It's the best shorthand way of describing the overall desirability of a certain piece. Call it state of preservation or overall quality, or whatever you'd like. In a couple of series I'm pretty darn good at predicting how a particular coin will grade in the range from MS62-MS67+. In other series, not so much.
In theory, so-called grading standards are a great idea. In practice, they were abandoned before the ink was even dry. Market grading, cabinet friction, eye appeal, and such.... these are weasel words. No way around that. It's simple to see the gradual effects of additional grades, plus and star designations, and a gradual trend toward gradeflation over the past 20 years. I've been seriously involved in the hobby for less than a decade and it has already changed a tremendous amount in that short time.
Still, our current concept of grading is the state-of-the-art and the way we all communicate. It's a messy, inconsistent, nebulous, frequently evolving concept, but that doesn't make it useless. Lots of perfectly good things in life are like that. Like it or not, grades do tie in to value and that's undoubtedly the primary reason we endeavor to assign them. The negotiations have to start somewhere. The opinions rendered by the TPGs are useful! They're educated, informed opinions, but remember, they're still opinions.
We all have a sense of what a common-date MS65 Peace dollar looks like in the marketplace today. We also have a sense that a coin given that grade 20 years ago would often be put in a MS66 or better holder today. That's baked into the cake of the history of our hobby and those who are "up on things" understand it.
The presence of an absolute standard (an unchanging computer algorithm OR a program of rigorous, validated, statistical analysis) would eliminate much (but never all) of the ambiguity, but would also remove the incentive to resubmit coins multiple times in the arbitrage game. In many ways that would work against the financial interests of the TPGs and also dealers who frequently "add value" by playing the game.
Those with training in the hard sciences will never consider an objective product to be completely valid when some of the inputs are subjective.
I feel for you. There is a growing cohort in this hobby who think that words have no meaning and need a Logic 101 or verbal reasoning course.
In buying things, there's the price and there's the price. This is why there are flea markets and yard sales. Value is whatever the agreed upon number is at the moment of sale. IMO. 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
Thank you and very well stated. I'm going to make a copy of this reply for my files. I'm letting it sink in before reading it again after I wake up with some coffee.