@Baley said:
Wine: "It's dark red and the pH is 6.3!" Stop here, do not get subjective!
House: "it's 2400 sq. ft. and was built in 1988."
Wine ratings make for a useful analogy. The rating is only useful before you taste it. Similarly, the "eye appeal" element to a composite grade is only useful until you see the coin.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@leothelyon said:
There the level of strike/ the amount of details....is the coin all there? This aspect in a coin's overall eye appeal is the most important in determining a coin's grade. Even the US Mint in it's glossary states;
Strike: The process of stamping a coin blank with a design. The strength of the imprint – full, average, or weak – affects the value of rare coins.
Next is the condition of the coin, the location of the marks, if any, are they central to the viewer's eye where they are a distraction to the coin's overall eye appeal. Marks come in an array of descriptions; scratches, carbon spotting, hairlines to name a couple. The state of the dies also plays a role into the grade of its condition. A weak strike is just plain ugly and effects the overall eye appeal quite negatively.
One word can be change with, the strength of the luster – full, average, or weak – affects the value of rare coins. How intense the luster on a coin will effect its overall eye appeal. Let me note here, subtle luster on the earliest of die state strikes is far rarer than blast white luster. Also, I've always have considered proof-like surfaces is a higher extension of die pollishing and thus, a much rarer form of luster on coins.
And lastly, toning/colors/slight corrosion. Too much will diminish the luster and overall eye appeal so.......there's got to be a balance of the two. Something like 5 to 25% toning with 75 to 95% luster, IMO are the most beautiful coins. If you're seeing only the toning, it's likely the luster is pretty much gone.
Eye appeal? Oh that's already been mentioned numerous times above and totally supported by the four most important aspects of a coin.
Yeah, yeah yeah, I had nothing to do so I sat here and wrote all the above. It's very windy out and cold and I know my truck tire needs air...definitely tomorrow before church.
Ah, wait......can't forget to post a coin.
Leo
Very well said. I hope this get's onto the BEST OF PAGE!
The problem with technical grading was it had no relationship to a coin's value
Well, then, What is the POINT of your "Technical Grading?
Seriously, if it's not an evaluation and appraisal of the overall Quality of the piece, what the hell good does it do anyone?
Actually, (as all here should expect) YOU have shown an excellent understanding of Technical Grading. You almost took the words out of my mouth and answered your own question for me.
Technical Grading is: An evaluation and appraisal of the overall Quality of the piece... The only thing you neglected to add is this: ...with respect to its condition of preservation from the moment it was struck.
@dpoole said:
There isn't even a pretense that "eye appeal" can be objectively or reliably "graded."
This is only partly true. With knowledge and experience it becomes easy to be less subjective about attractive eye-appeal.
With many things, there are certain characteristics or trends that come and go. There are trendsetters that establish the most acceptable norms that most eventually follow. The "Blast White/Attractively Toned" example comes to mind. Therefore, a numismatist can hate any type of color on a coin yet acknowledge the fact that a majority of other numismatists, love a little attractive color.
Does anyone agree with me that after the last "BRIGHT WHITE AGE" caused by the numismatic trendsetters that a little "color" on a coin was an indication (often incorrect) that the coin was 100% original and untouched from the day it was struck!
I don’t need a star or sticker to tell a coin is PQ nor will I pay a river boat gambler 70 pct premium for a coin bc it has a sticker.
Let’s say coin A a CAC piece is $1700 k and the the non CAC piece same issue same grade both Pcgs is $1000k and is nice for the grade and will do in fine in filling the hole. The $700 k cost savings for the non stickered piece will buy approx 305 $20 slabbed Libs and Saints in MS63 - 65 (cost averaging, non CAC based on cheapest issue vs most exp CDN CPG). That is enough pieces to fill a coin 2x3 ft display case about 4 slabs deep! Of course the seller pushing u buy the $1.7 m piece with the best u can afford pitch / poker all in. I am not saying a billionaire would back off the more exp one or would he. Me - Want all those slabbed DE. What say ye when gold goes back up to $2000 or even much higher!
It is a pleasure to have a discussion with such an informed numismatist! We are in TOTAL AGREEMENT! You should teach a grading class if yu don't already.
@Baley said: "The technical grade is part of the rating, the easy part.
Yes, Yes, YES! And that is the first requsite of an IDEAL GRADING SYSTEM! It should be SIMPLE TO USE for anyone, Now please post this answer on my other discussion.
@Bailey continued: "The Net part (up or down) is The rest, and more difficult."
YES, YES! The SUBJECTIVITY from the up and down is what makes NET Grading more difficult and more unreliable (and pure nonsense IMO) than commercial grading which is extremely difficult as it is because you must know the prevailing "Market Value" of the coin! Both these systems are extremely flawed - they can never be simple to understand or skillfully applied - without being an extremely knowlegeable person. Even with that, there was room for STICKERS! See my point?
I've been professionally pradticing grading for almost fifty years. I'll never be a proficient Net Grader when even long time Large Cent specialists cannot agree on net grades. I'll never be a proficient Commercial Grader either when absolutely 100% identical coins are graded differently because of their date, mint, reflective mirror surface, and value in grade!!!! I'm going to die a dummy.
@Baley said:
People who want to actually buy and sell rare, old coins with a variety of problems, rather than have shallow philosophies about how things "should be" in their fantasies. THAT'S who.
"VF details, scratched" tells me very little about the overall Quality for a R6 bust quarter.
"VF details minor scratch reverse feathers. Net Fine" tells me it's a much better coin than "VF details, major scratch obv. cheek, Net Good"
I might just buy either coin, for a fair price. I'd Never know what to pay for the VF details scratched coin until i take that next step of evaluation.
Why does it bother you so much that pragmatists think this way?
It's my collection and my money.
What's yer prob??
vf details implies that it would grade vf without the issue/s, no? I assume that pointing out the existence of the/a scratch/issue means that someone looking at the coin should be able to see/find it.
Also since there is so little room on the insert why not write a description for coins that don't straight grade and make that info available when you check on the cert number?
NGC uses five designators on ancients: wear, strike, surface, eye appeal, and "fine style". To keep up with the competition, clearly PCGS needs at least six designators. Though to be real market leaders they need eight. And I think we would all agree ANACS had it right a long time ago when they provided separate grades for the obverse and reverse, bringing the total number of "grades" to a helpful but totally manageable 16. To cater to the aging collector base they may need to alter the slab slightly rather than reduce font size to fit in the new information. I've provided a simple mock-up below for the slab of the future.
Agree with Mark Feld. Eye appeal is in the eye of the holder. I have several toned coins which some people in the hobby I greatly respect love, and others hate.
Cameonut recently posted a Peace $ that I thought was radioactive with questionable color that someone recently bought for $9K. I wouldn't buy it under any circumstances. The coin itself in its assigned grade was of nominal value.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I dunno. The target is moving and has always been moving. I've thought about this a little. In order of importance, I'd like the TPG's to do this:
Guarantee that the coin is authentic
Identify and mention issues (cleaning, environmental damage, etc.)
Grade the technical merits of the coin by objective parameters (strike, luster, surfaces).
Rate the overall eye appeal (-2,-1.5,-1,-0.5,0,+0.5,+1,+1.5,+2)
Assign a final grade.
Put the coin in something to protect it.
The grade would look like this: MS63 + 1.5 = MS64+
Seems to be a good way to combine the best merits of technical grade and still account for eye appeal. It might not work perfectly when it comes to valuation, but I can't see any way to pin that down. Coins aren't fungible and that's all there is to it. This sort of thing is already happening, but the math seems inconsistently applied and is unknown to the end consumer paying for the appraisal/valuation/grade/assessment.
While we're at it, I'd also get rid of qualifiers like FBL, FB, FH, FS and such. Even a novice can see that stuff.
How does a grading company keep making money when the grades stop changing? Well, that's a tricky question, and one I have no idea how to answer.
Following the formula above, You must know I'm not qualified in this department. Tools: 42 inch HD screen and a brat of a camera. Micro only...don't ask. I'm working on the IT department. Have this coin 1964 cent. Toned. NO AT. The strike is very powerful Not so Perfect- Regardless it plays a part in eye appeal. Pinkish in hand and you can tell it wants to pop into a evenly spread of rainbow or in my business, A PMS Guide
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Assignment of a numerical grade based upon wear, nicks, luster, strike is also a subjective evaluation. Consider the wide variation in GTG threads on this forum. Adding appearance, which is definitely a subjective criteria, seems very threatening to some collectors. If the technical grade as exists now could be downgraded because of eye appeal, those collectors who bought the holder have every right to be concerned.
OINK
The fact is that a technical grade (subjective though it may be) can still be quantified and a consensus may be reached within reasonable accuracy. You cannot, however, accurately quantify something so totally debatable as eye appeal.
@Outhaul said: "The fact is that a technical grade (SUBJECTIVE though it may be) can still be quantified and a consensus may be reached within reasonable accuracy.
This is basically OK; however, I am 100% convinced that less than 1% of the members on CU or any other coin forum actually know much about true technical grading as practiced by the folks who devised the original technical grading system!"
For one thing, "True TECHNICAL Grading" was ONLY done using a stereo microscope and florescent light. It was very strict (back then MS = No TRACE of friction wear). As for "reasonable accuracy" it was very precise because it was very strict. A coin was not XF one week and AU several months later or even MS after a few more years!
Additionally, ALL of the things (strike, PMD, eye appeal, value, etc) that could cause any subjectivity were not included in a coin's technical grade. They were added as modifiers to further describe the coin.
@Outhaul continued: "You cannot, however, accurately quantify something so totally debatable [and extremely subjective for multiple reasons] as eye appeal."
AMEN! Eye appeal affects a coin's value. It SHOULD NOT CHANGE its grade. Unfortunately, in order to express the fact that an attractive coin is worth more, its grade must be raised in our commercial grading system. That's one reason why coins with the same numeric grade often sell for wide price margins at auction.
@savitale said:
NGC uses five designators on ancients: wear, strike, surface, eye appeal, and "fine style". To keep up with the competition, clearly PCGS needs at least six designators. Though to be real market leaders they need eight. And I think we would all agree ANACS had it right a long time ago when they provided separate grades for the obverse and reverse, bringing the total number of "grades" to a helpful but totally manageable 16. To cater to the aging collector base they may need to alter the slab slightly rather than reduce font size to fit in the new information. I've provided a simple mock-up below for the slab of the future.
Forgot the "ego barometer", how much should be charged for the trip.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Just stopping in before work, I like the mock up slab, seems more informative. Question: when graded does paperwork come with the graded coin as per an apperaisel. Sry spelling terriable.. be back @ 11pm
IF I may , this is just a demo of my camera capabilities. Do not jump to conclusions, this is just a thought on chalky photos
. OK. See what I can do. NO I WOULD NEVER!!! WATCH THIS, and think cut and place.
Comments
Wine ratings make for a useful analogy. The rating is only useful before you taste it. Similarly, the "eye appeal" element to a composite grade is only useful until you see the coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Very well said. I hope this get's onto the BEST OF PAGE!
Actually, (as all here should expect) YOU have shown an excellent understanding of Technical Grading. You almost took the words out of my mouth and answered your own question for me.
Technical Grading is: An evaluation and appraisal of the overall Quality of the piece... The only thing you neglected to add is this: ...with respect to its condition of preservation from the moment it was struck.
@Baley said: "You're fighting a "lost battle". Think about it.
LOL, we all tend to believe in only what we can see. I assure you that things go on out of our sight, our pay scale, and your need to know.
What part of modern "Details Graded Coins" are virtually all technically graded didn't make the point that only half the battle is lost.
PS As one of my favorite members here I hope to meet you one day!
This is only partly true. With knowledge and experience it becomes easy to be less subjective about attractive eye-appeal.
With many things, there are certain characteristics or trends that come and go. There are trendsetters that establish the most acceptable norms that most eventually follow. The "Blast White/Attractively Toned" example comes to mind. Therefore, a numismatist can hate any type of color on a coin yet acknowledge the fact that a majority of other numismatists, love a little attractive color.
Does anyone agree with me that after the last "BRIGHT WHITE AGE" caused by the numismatic trendsetters that a little "color" on a coin was an indication (often incorrect) that the coin was 100% original and untouched from the day it was struck!
My little neice uses one of those books to color in the drawings.
I don’t need a star or sticker to tell a coin is PQ nor will I pay a river boat gambler 70 pct premium for a coin bc it has a sticker.
Let’s say coin A a CAC piece is $1700 k and the the non CAC piece same issue same grade both Pcgs is $1000k and is nice for the grade and will do in fine in filling the hole. The $700 k cost savings for the non stickered piece will buy approx 305 $20 slabbed Libs and Saints in MS63 - 65 (cost averaging, non CAC based on cheapest issue vs most exp CDN CPG). That is enough pieces to fill a coin 2x3 ft display case about 4 slabs deep! Of course the seller pushing u buy the $1.7 m piece with the best u can afford pitch / poker all in. I am not saying a billionaire would back off the more exp one or would he. Me - Want all those slabbed DE. What say ye when gold goes back up to $2000 or even much higher!
It is a pleasure to have a discussion with such an informed numismatist! We are in TOTAL AGREEMENT! You should teach a grading class if yu don't already.
@Baley said: "The technical grade is part of the rating, the easy part.
Yes, Yes, YES! And that is the first requsite of an IDEAL GRADING SYSTEM! It should be SIMPLE TO USE for anyone, Now please post this answer on my other discussion.
@Bailey continued: "The Net part (up or down) is The rest, and more difficult."
YES, YES! The SUBJECTIVITY from the up and down is what makes NET Grading more difficult and more unreliable (and pure nonsense IMO) than commercial grading which is extremely difficult as it is because you must know the prevailing "Market Value" of the coin! Both these systems are extremely flawed - they can never be simple to understand or skillfully applied - without being an extremely knowlegeable person. Even with that, there was room for STICKERS!
See my point?
I've been professionally pradticing grading for almost fifty years. I'll never be a proficient Net Grader when even long time Large Cent specialists cannot agree on net grades. I'll never be a proficient Commercial Grader either when absolutely 100% identical coins are graded differently because of their date, mint, reflective mirror surface, and value in grade!!!!
I'm going to die a dummy. 
Back later. It's a beautiful warm sunny day here in Sarasota and the car needs to be let out for its weekend ride.
vf details implies that it would grade vf without the issue/s, no? I assume that pointing out the existence of the/a scratch/issue means that someone looking at the coin should be able to see/find it.
Also since there is so little room on the insert why not write a description for coins that don't straight grade and make that info available when you check on the cert number?
NGC uses five designators on ancients: wear, strike, surface, eye appeal, and "fine style". To keep up with the competition, clearly PCGS needs at least six designators. Though to be real market leaders they need eight. And I think we would all agree ANACS had it right a long time ago when they provided separate grades for the obverse and reverse, bringing the total number of "grades" to a helpful but totally manageable 16. To cater to the aging collector base they may need to alter the slab slightly rather than reduce font size to fit in the new information. I've provided a simple mock-up below for the slab of the future.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Agree with Mark Feld. Eye appeal is in the eye of the holder. I have several toned coins which some people in the hobby I greatly respect love, and others hate.
Cameonut recently posted a Peace $ that I thought was radioactive with questionable color that someone recently bought for $9K. I wouldn't buy it under any circumstances. The coin itself in its assigned grade was of nominal value.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I dunno. The target is moving and has always been moving. I've thought about this a little. In order of importance, I'd like the TPG's to do this:
The grade would look like this: MS63 + 1.5 = MS64+
Seems to be a good way to combine the best merits of technical grade and still account for eye appeal. It might not work perfectly when it comes to valuation, but I can't see any way to pin that down. Coins aren't fungible and that's all there is to it. This sort of thing is already happening, but the math seems inconsistently applied and is unknown to the end consumer paying for the appraisal/valuation/grade/assessment.
While we're at it, I'd also get rid of qualifiers like FBL, FB, FH, FS and such. Even a novice can see that stuff.
How does a grading company keep making money when the grades stop changing? Well, that's a tricky question, and one I have no idea how to answer.
Following the formula above, You must know I'm not qualified in this department. Tools: 42 inch HD screen and a brat of a camera. Micro only...don't ask. I'm working on the IT department. Have this coin 1964 cent. Toned. NO AT. The strike is very powerful Not so Perfect- Regardless it plays a part in eye appeal. Pinkish in hand and you can tell it wants to pop into a evenly spread of rainbow or in my business, A PMS Guide
MS ? 67 Eye appeal. 1.5
The fact is that a technical grade (subjective though it may be) can still be quantified and a consensus may be reached within reasonable accuracy. You cannot, however, accurately quantify something so totally debatable as eye appeal.
Cheers
Bob
@Outhaul said: "The fact is that a technical grade (SUBJECTIVE though it may be) can still be quantified and a consensus may be reached within reasonable accuracy.
This is basically OK; however, I am 100% convinced that less than 1% of the members on CU or any other coin forum actually know much about true technical grading as practiced by the folks who devised the original technical grading system!"
For one thing, "True TECHNICAL Grading" was ONLY done using a stereo microscope and florescent light. It was very strict (back then MS = No TRACE of friction wear). As for "reasonable accuracy" it was very precise because it was very strict. A coin was not XF one week and AU several months later or even MS after a few more years!
Additionally, ALL of the things (strike, PMD, eye appeal, value, etc) that could cause any subjectivity were not included in a coin's technical grade. They were added as modifiers to further describe the coin.
@Outhaul continued: "You cannot, however, accurately quantify something so totally debatable [and extremely subjective for multiple reasons] as eye appeal."
AMEN! Eye appeal affects a coin's value. It SHOULD NOT CHANGE its grade. Unfortunately, in order to express the fact that an attractive coin is worth more, its grade must be raised in our commercial grading system. That's one reason why coins with the same numeric grade often sell for wide price margins at auction.
Forgot the "ego barometer", how much should be charged for the trip.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
@leothelyon said:
Forgot the "ego barometer", how much should be charged for the trip.
Question @leothelyon, what does "ego barometer" have to do with this slab?
Just stopping in before work, I like the mock up slab, seems more informative. Question: when graded does paperwork come with the graded coin as per an apperaisel. Sry spelling terriable.. be back @ 11pm
IF I may , this is just a demo of my camera capabilities. Do not jump to conclusions, this is just a thought on chalky photos
. OK. See what I can do. NO I WOULD NEVER!!! WATCH THIS, and think cut and place.
Top image is true with minor focus or clarity adjustments