@DIMEMAN said:
Not sure what you are looking for here??
What do you expect a grading system used by the FIRST and brand new grading service to do? What does it need to provide (grade coins) in order to be considered ideal - the best possible!
@gtstang said:
Well, if you go way back to when there was no grading scale, then rather than using math and numbers to grade, you would likely be going by the good, better, best method.
That's an out-of-the-box thought. But how would you rate good, better, best coins when submissions change every day. You would need to call all the "better" coins "better" ALL THE TIME! Furthermore, better than what. What is the standard?
@ReadyFireAim said:
How about no details/body-bag in the new system.
Cleaning, scratches, wheel marks & AT are all factored into the "grade". (whatever it is)
That system is called "net grading." LOL, this is a serious discussion. I don't wish to muck it up with that nonsense.
Even the copper grading guide says it is a very subjective system with no application in most of commercial numismatics as practiced by the TPGS. What I'm writing is that net grading has more problems associated with it than what we have now. It does not fulfill ANY of the requirements to have a perfect grading system.
@JRocco said:
I always like the descriptive terms when I was a kid because I understood them.
For example saying a coin was very good or fine meant something, Even almost uncirculated held a firm concept of the coins's state or grade. Now when numbers are brought in you put another tier into each of those descriptive monikers.
I could see a novice collector wanting to see a descriptive moniker as well as a number that defines it a little better, say calling something a Fine1, Fine 2 or Fine 3 with Fine 3 being a prime example. This might work on collector coins but when you start talking high value pieces or very high grade pieces it can get a little too simple.
I would have to put a lot more thought into this but that would be my starting point.
Hidden in this post is exactly ONE OF THE MAJOR requirements for an ideal grading system. In just a few words, what is it?
The present situation is badly mucked up. Nothing is reliable, consistent or even remotely objective.
But, for someone new to put out a clear, clean, consistent, stable product would be very high risk - mostly because of the immense sums already invested in confusion, and the probable losses when the hoards of overgraded and inflated grade pieces are re-examined.
@RogerB said:
The present situation is badly mucked up. Nothing is reliable, consistent or even remotely objective.
But, for someone new to put out a clear, clean, consistent, stable product would be very high risk - mostly because of the immense sums already invested in confusion, and the probable losses when the hoards of overgraded and inflated grade pieces are re-examined.
Another excellent post with more major requirements. What are they?
PS Remember, this is a fanciful discussion. No one in their right mind going to put any of this into practice - again.
@lava said:
People renovating their houses have a distinct advantage over people building from scratch — they know what they like and want to preserve, and they know what they don’t like and want to change. Moving to a new system would bring all sorts of new problems. The current system may not be perfect, but many of us get the main points and most of the nuances, so I’d avoid an overhaul.
Thanks for your comments. THIS IS NOT a discussion about changing anything. This is not a discussion about the very flawed system we have now. This is a WHAT IF. What if nothing existed, no preconceived ideas. What does a perfect grading system need to do all the time.
I think you guys are too intelligent. No overthinking needed. Go back to your YN days. What would you want/expect from a perfect grading system. Most of the requirements can be expressed in one word answers.
@Insider2 said:
I'd like to discuss the truths, principals, and basic concepts involved in ESTABLISHING a basic grading system from scratch.
What problem are you trying to solve? Developing a way to describe the appearance of coins to someone who is not able to view them? Figuring out how to price coins for sale? Ranking coins for inclusion in competitive collections? Something else?
This is a mind expanding discussion to get folks to think about coin grading. It will not solve anything.
BTW, what you have posted above is a description of the present day grading system which is being used in an attempt to accomplish the three things you mention and more. Unfortunately, it is not perfect.
What would add to the discussion are the necessary things to make it perfect if no system existed at this moment in time.
Two members have posted some of the tings we can all agree on. They are just described and not specifically stated in the posts. I'm going to give it a little more time to come out.
I have not read every reply posted so far, but I have a comment.
Stepping back and thinking about grading causes me to ask:
What is the purpose and function of grading coins?
As said in a reply, if coins never changed hands and just "sat there" there would be no need for grading.
Does coin grading exist to support, maintain and grow the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to promote commerce (buying and selling) in the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to help participants in the hobby become more knowledgeable and sophisticated?
Once the purpose and function of coin grading is determined and agreed upon persons involved in the hobby can cogitate and come up with suggestions for a new coin grading system. One that will be able to better serve its purpose and function.
@BillJones said:
Rarity should have effect upon the grade. A better date should not get extra grading points because it's scarce or rare.
People complain about net grading, but the Early Copper dealers and collectors do it all the time. How do you rank coins for a condition census or place a value on an item that has an issue? To say you can't net grade anything is avoiding an obvious question. What do you do with those items if you can't adjust the grade for them some how? Do you throw up your hands and toss them in a junk box or melting pot? If you did that, a lot of early coins would be unmarketable and uncollectable.
The alternative to net grading is details grading.
Details grade coins to get sold and often for good premiums, but much less so than net graded coins.
So, there are two classes of problem coins. Rare coins are net graded. "Rare" coins are details graded. Should they be treated differently?
The purpose of grading in my opinion is to be able to communicate the attributes and defects of a certain example. When I was new I read lots and lots of descriptions of coins and then tried to picture in my mind what it was that the writer was trying to communicate to me. I had many opportunities in which to try and figure out what was the difference between porosity and slight corrosion, or to delineate what was a smooth chocolate brown color compared to mahogany. With silver coins there is the various ways in which luster is described for instance; is it creamy? or is it satiny? Is an example scudzy? Does it have a "circulation cameo" appearance? Is there toning, and if so what is the descriptor which best explains it?
All these descriptors come into play with grading. Just assigning a number is one thing, but having descriptors to further clarify the condition of said object is to me the ala mode on the piece of pie.
RE: "Another excellent post with more major requirements. What are they?"
Those were stated in an earlier response to this thread.
Here's an example of the financial implications: All the major authentication companies have, on rare occasion, had something they authenticated turn out to be a long-standing mistake or error in old documentation and assumption. A clear example is certification of some MCMVII Double Eagles as "proofs" when all of these were made exactly the same way and without distinction. The "so-called proofs" commanded much higher prices. But, authentication was based on 50-year old comments and have been show to be spurious. How does one handle the monetary problem ? One can't really fault the authenticator who made a determination based on what was once accepted as correct. Yet "the market" has accepted the authentication as real and assigned a premium entirely on that information.
Now, apply this principle to 100,000 or 1 million overgraded coins ... coins that have received high prices based on an unstable system. No one is going to be happy when their "MS63" double eagle comes back from the "New Graders" as "AU."
I vote for leaving the present system alone. Despite its documented faults, does anyone want to go back to BU when a dealer sells a coin and an AU when he buys it?
@asheland said:
I personally don't care for bumping a grade for nice eye appeal. An AU58 is an AU58, not a 61 because it's pretty, likewise adding a point for pretty toning. I don't care for that, just grade it what it really is...
Serious question... I thought AU58 was MS64/65 with rub?
AU55 was MS 63 w/rub
And so on down the line.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
IMHO, grading should be sought for: 1) authentication (Yes/No), and technical features, as defined by the state of the coin's preservation. I'm no expert by any stretch, but I'd explore the possibility of scanning vast numbers of existing graded coins, eliciting a computer-derived "average" features of coins in each series according to existing grade, "locking in" those averages as the objective definition of said grade, and subjecting all coins going forward to that definition, as applied by computer scans.
This leaves us with a coin reliably, consistently and objectively authenticated, scanned/documented and technically graded.
Leave it to the marketplace to determine the coin's "eye appeal," appeal in general, and value.
@ricko said:
The final answer will be computer grading. With AI being applied in many areas now, the mountain of work required for programming will become more manageable. Specific standards for marks and wear can be established and will be repeatable (eliminating human opinion). Eye appeal must be left to the market. Beyond technical, physical issues, people are attracted to different appearances (much like art, cars and the opposite sex). This will lead to a slow, but massive change in the hobby.... but one that will benefit everyone in the future. Cheers, RickO
The OP's challenge premised upon no existent grading system would be well met with RickO's observation. Had the present day technology been available when the existent grading systems were originated one has to wonder if we would even have what we now have?
Had there been CDs we may never have had cassette tape. Had there been cars we may never have had carriages. Had there been memory cards there may never have been film.
I have not read every reply posted so far, but I have a comment.
Stepping back and thinking about grading causes me to ask:
What is the purpose and function of grading coins?
As said in a reply, if coins never changed hands and just "sat there" there would be no need for grading.
Does coin grading exist to support, maintain and grow the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to promote commerce (buying and selling) in the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to help participants in the hobby become more knowledgeable and sophisticated?
Once the purpose and function of coin grading is determined and agreed upon persons involved in the hobby can cogitate and come up with suggestions for a new coin grading system. One that will be able to better serve its purpose and function.
A great reply that fits exactly into the theme of this discussion. IMO, the purpose of grading a coin is an attempt to describe any deviation from its original state of preservation the moment it was struck. Therefore, its GRADE it should not include anything else such as pedigree, rarity, value, time period it was made, how it was made, etc! Now what would be necessary to achieve an "ideal" system?
@RogerB said:
RE: "Another excellent post with more major requirements. What are they?"
Those were stated in an earlier response to this thread.
Here's an example of the financial implications: All the major authentication companies have, on rare occasion, had something they authenticated turn out to be a long-standing mistake or error in old documentation and assumption. A clear example is certification of some MCMVII Double Eagles as "proofs" when all of these were made exactly the same way and without distinction. The "so-called proofs" commanded much higher prices. But, authentication was based on 50-year old comments and have been show to be spurious. How does one handle the monetary problem ? One can't really fault the authenticator who made a determination based on what was once accepted as correct. Yet "the market" has accepted the authentication as real and assigned a premium entirely on that information.
Now, apply this principle to 100,000 or 1 million overgraded coins ... coins that have received high prices based on an unstable system. No one is going to be happy when their "MS63" double eagle comes back from the "New Graders" as "AU."
While authentication and grading are connected, I wish to focus on the prerequisites for an IDEAL grading system. Your previous post mentioned a clear, clean, consistent, stable product. I'll distill this down to what I believe but we are not finished yet.
So far...IDEAL GRADING SYSTEM:
Simple to use and understand.
Consistent (precise).
Now, as to this: "No one is going to be happy when their "MS63" double eagle comes back from the "New Graders" as "AU."
IMO, you can put any number or name on a $100 coin be it "Fine" or "12". If one day in the future there is an IDEAL system and the $100 coin is labeled "nice enough" or "LU" or even "742.7" as long as it is still a $100 coin, no one is going to give ... ah, another minute of thought to the change.
Zoins - Hence the multitude of complaints, confusion and general uselessness of so-called third-party-grading "grading." The mess can be fixed - but there will be emotional and financial costs. Let's all get it clear that most of the circulated grades from the major companies are good. It's AU and above where things get messed up - and you need full-body waders to stomp in that swamp.
Insider2 - I've already stated the requirements of an objective, fair system. I won't bother to repeat it.
Comments
What do you expect a grading system used by the FIRST and brand new grading service to do? What does it need to provide (grade coins) in order to be considered ideal - the best possible!
That's an out-of-the-box thought. But how would you rate good, better, best coins when submissions change every day. You would need to call all the "better" coins "better" ALL THE TIME! Furthermore, better than what. What is the standard?
That system is called "net grading." LOL, this is a serious discussion. I don't wish to muck it up with that nonsense.
Even the copper grading guide says it is a very subjective system with no application in most of commercial numismatics as practiced by the TPGS. What I'm writing is that net grading has more problems associated with it than what we have now. It does not fulfill ANY of the requirements to have a perfect grading system.
Hidden in this post is exactly ONE OF THE MAJOR requirements for an ideal grading system. In just a few words, what is it?
The present situation is badly mucked up. Nothing is reliable, consistent or even remotely objective.
But, for someone new to put out a clear, clean, consistent, stable product would be very high risk - mostly because of the immense sums already invested in confusion, and the probable losses when the hoards of overgraded and inflated grade pieces are re-examined.
Another excellent post with more major requirements. What are they?
PS Remember, this is a fanciful discussion. No one in their right mind going to put any of this into practice - again.
Thanks for your comments. THIS IS NOT a discussion about changing anything. This is not a discussion about the very flawed system we have now. This is a WHAT IF. What if nothing existed, no preconceived ideas. What does a perfect grading system need to do all the time.
I think you guys are too intelligent. No overthinking needed. Go back to your YN days. What would you want/expect from a perfect grading system. Most of the requirements can be expressed in one word answers.
This is a mind expanding discussion to get folks to think about coin grading. It will not solve anything.
BTW, what you have posted above is a description of the present day grading system which is being used in an attempt to accomplish the three things you mention and more. Unfortunately, it is not perfect.
What would add to the discussion are the necessary things to make it perfect if no system existed at this moment in time.
Two members have posted some of the tings we can all agree on. They are just described and not specifically stated in the posts. I'm going to give it a little more time to come out.
Interesting topic.
I have not read every reply posted so far, but I have a comment.
Stepping back and thinking about grading causes me to ask:
What is the purpose and function of grading coins?
As said in a reply, if coins never changed hands and just "sat there" there would be no need for grading.
Does coin grading exist to support, maintain and grow the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to promote commerce (buying and selling) in the hobby?
Does coin grading exist to help participants in the hobby become more knowledgeable and sophisticated?
Once the purpose and function of coin grading is determined and agreed upon persons involved in the hobby can cogitate and come up with suggestions for a new coin grading system. One that will be able to better serve its purpose and function.
The alternative to net grading is details grading.
Details grade coins to get sold and often for good premiums, but much less so than net graded coins.
So, there are two classes of problem coins. Rare coins are net graded. "Rare" coins are details graded. Should they be treated differently?
The purpose of grading in my opinion is to be able to communicate the attributes and defects of a certain example. When I was new I read lots and lots of descriptions of coins and then tried to picture in my mind what it was that the writer was trying to communicate to me. I had many opportunities in which to try and figure out what was the difference between porosity and slight corrosion, or to delineate what was a smooth chocolate brown color compared to mahogany. With silver coins there is the various ways in which luster is described for instance; is it creamy? or is it satiny? Is an example scudzy? Does it have a "circulation cameo" appearance? Is there toning, and if so what is the descriptor which best explains it?
All these descriptors come into play with grading. Just assigning a number is one thing, but having descriptors to further clarify the condition of said object is to me the ala mode on the piece of pie.
RE: "Another excellent post with more major requirements. What are they?"
Those were stated in an earlier response to this thread.
Here's an example of the financial implications: All the major authentication companies have, on rare occasion, had something they authenticated turn out to be a long-standing mistake or error in old documentation and assumption. A clear example is certification of some MCMVII Double Eagles as "proofs" when all of these were made exactly the same way and without distinction. The "so-called proofs" commanded much higher prices. But, authentication was based on 50-year old comments and have been show to be spurious. How does one handle the monetary problem ? One can't really fault the authenticator who made a determination based on what was once accepted as correct. Yet "the market" has accepted the authentication as real and assigned a premium entirely on that information.
Now, apply this principle to 100,000 or 1 million overgraded coins ... coins that have received high prices based on an unstable system. No one is going to be happy when their "MS63" double eagle comes back from the "New Graders" as "AU."
Clear Descriptive terms.
Accuracy.
Consistency.
Independent & Objective.
I vote for leaving the present system alone. Despite its documented faults, does anyone want to go back to BU when a dealer sells a coin and an AU when he buys it?
Fresh set of eyes. Graders can not have worked for a TPG in the past. The boss can set the new standards. (Sorry, you said never a TPG).
Technical Grading only. Collectors and Dealers will be their own judges of the coins other attributes.
Stick with one slab as long as possible. No OGH's or Fatty Slab's.
If you trust your grader's you'll have a SUPER guarantee.
Great support team. It's not about a nine hour day, it's about getting the work done.
To be a good team communication is key. Top down. Solicit input from your workers.
Collectors or Dealers who AT are gone. Never another submission. Don't care how much money they bring in.
That's it for now, just quickly off the tip of my head.
Serious question... I thought AU58 was MS64/65 with rub?
AU55 was MS 63 w/rub
And so on down the line.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
IMHO, grading should be sought for: 1) authentication (Yes/No), and technical features, as defined by the state of the coin's preservation. I'm no expert by any stretch, but I'd explore the possibility of scanning vast numbers of existing graded coins, eliciting a computer-derived "average" features of coins in each series according to existing grade, "locking in" those averages as the objective definition of said grade, and subjecting all coins going forward to that definition, as applied by computer scans.
This leaves us with a coin reliably, consistently and objectively authenticated, scanned/documented and technically graded.
Leave it to the marketplace to determine the coin's "eye appeal," appeal in general, and value.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
The OP's challenge premised upon no existent grading system would be well met with RickO's observation. Had the present day technology been available when the existent grading systems were originated one has to wonder if we would even have what we now have?
Had there been CDs we may never have had cassette tape. Had there been cars we may never have had carriages. Had there been memory cards there may never have been film.
A great reply that fits exactly into the theme of this discussion. IMO, the purpose of grading a coin is an attempt to describe any deviation from its original state of preservation the moment it was struck. Therefore, its GRADE it should not include anything else such as pedigree, rarity, value, time period it was made, how it was made, etc! Now what would be necessary to achieve an "ideal" system?
While authentication and grading are connected, I wish to focus on the prerequisites for an IDEAL grading system. Your previous post mentioned a clear, clean, consistent, stable product. I'll distill this down to what I believe but we are not finished yet.
So far...IDEAL GRADING SYSTEM:
Now, as to this: "No one is going to be happy when their "MS63" double eagle comes back from the "New Graders" as "AU."
IMO, you can put any number or name on a $100 coin be it "Fine" or "12". If one day in the future there is an IDEAL system and the $100 coin is labeled "nice enough" or "LU" or even "742.7" as long as it is still a $100 coin, no one is going to give ... ah, another minute of thought to the change.
That's what I'm looking for exactly!
While people may not be happy, it happens. We always hear about people saying grading is "tight" (or "loose") on these forums.
Zoins - Hence the multitude of complaints, confusion and general uselessness of so-called third-party-grading "grading." The mess can be fixed - but there will be emotional and financial costs. Let's all get it clear that most of the circulated grades from the major companies are good. It's AU and above where things get messed up - and you need full-body waders to stomp in that swamp.
Insider2 - I've already stated the requirements of an objective, fair system. I won't bother to repeat it.