@Insider2 . Fair enough, I really didn’t mean to sound condescending and conformity has never been my strong suit. It’s just hard to imagine at this point “they” will make any changes to the grading procedures but, let me chug a few more beers and get my idea hat back on straight.
Follow up to another post:
CAC will need to follow suit with some sort of stamp or chop mark or else become irrelevant. have you ever put a sticker on your stainless steel refrigerator :-)
@CoinscratchFever said: "Fair enough, I really didn’t mean to sound condescending and conformity has never been my strong suit. It’s just hard to imagine at this point “they” will make any changes to the grading procedures but, let me chug a few more beers and get my idea hat back on straight."
I agree. So I began..."This is an exercise in fantasy as we cannot change anything that is being done at this time.
Nevertheless, a discussion on anything often brings up a lot of things many may never think about. Wink.
I don't have the time or the inclination to comment on the rest of your post today. However, please keep posting! I'll look forward to reading more of your ideas when you remember them.
You ask people for their opinion of what they would change if they were in charge of the grading standards and process, and when the first person here to describe in significant detail what they would do, and gives you what you asked for, you reply with a snarky remark and indicate that you didn't even read the comment.
Why ask for ideas if you're going to denigrate the replies you receive, and insult the people who wrote them?
I regret posting on your thread now. It's clear that you don't care for answers you asked for, you just want to laugh at any suggestion that isn't your own.
Get a norm established so every TPG, collector or whatever would have to grade based on the same rules and guidelines.
If that is not possible, then get a norm established based on the Top TPG( our host) guidelines and make it law!!
I don't have the time or the inclination to comment on the rest of your post today. However, please keep posting! I'll look forward to reading more of your ideas when you remember them.
You ask people for their opinion of what they would change if they were in charge of the grading standards and process, and when the first person here to describe in significant detail what they do gives you what you asked for, you reply with a snarky comment and indicate that you didn't even read the comment.
Why ask for ideas if you're going to denigrate the replies you receive, and insult the people who wrote them?
I regret posting on your thread now. It's clear that you don't care for answers you asked for, you just want to laugh at any suggestion that isn't your own.
Goodbye.
Hello, Redstone,
Everyone has an opinion. As I wrote above, I'm VERY INTERESTED to hear what Mr. Hall had to say. He is one of the founders of PCGS and his ideas have changed the entire coin industry. I'm very sorry you feel slighted but so far, in my opinion, your very enjoyable posts do not approach anything Mr. Hall would have said.
Nevertheless
As I wrote above, I'm going to respond fully to your very thoughtful ideas during my "Happy Hour" one evening this weekend.
Thanks again for taking the time to post. Good Night.
@CoinscratchFever said: @Insider2 No offense, I was just trying to give an answer as asinine as your question. I suppose we can always wish in one hand :-)
@Insider2 . There is a reason PCGS is el numero uno, actually probably several. I see a lot of new & old ideas (including my own) and some because you task us to think outside the box from time to time but, after careful thought of each I keep realizing that "they" have already thought these through, the system is tried and true.
One great idea may sound wonderful but, there is always another reason why it is not such a great idea. Sometimes from a monetary stand point and sometimes from a longevity stand point which also points back to money. And I hate to keep beating a dead horse (the poor little guy).
But and for now, I still believe the way around chinese chicken (fakes) is a new slab, the same size of course, with a metal casing around the edges, with a metal signature, possibly even with designer styles. One that does not open and cannot be reproduced, period. Okay so now your burning my reconsideration fees. That's okay, as a customer I don't mind spending $500 to case my $10,000 and + coin and from the finest coin grading service in the world. Sorry not sorry CAC, the case in of itself brings the premiums and security.
And to answer your question, oh never-mind I just did
Then come the legacy premiums later such as the rattlers etc.
A coin shouldn't be bumped up a grade or two if has attractive luster, while at the same time, has too many hits on its fields to support the higher grade. I've seen several MS 67 type coins which fit this description.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
How about, "a deep pocket market maker backs the Grade they assign with firm and slow-changing bid and ask prices for all the so-certified coins (grade number) sight unseen, regardless of the coins' appearance, whether premium or problem, the grade number determines both the Ex-pert Quality AND liquid Value"?
I'd be a much more active collector if that were the case.
How about making a 70 Grade, Mint State or Proof rare again, like it was twenty years ago, this would be left to the true museum piece that it should be, not something that you can presale a hundred of on eBay knowing if you submit two hundred coins straight from the mint you are sure to get at least a hundred and ten 70's.
Could you imagine if in 2001 you did a presale for Proof 70 Silver Eagles, you would be laughed off the boards. In fact as I recall that's close to what self slabbers were doing at the time, but at least they waited until they had the coins in hand.
Do you believe that some Proof 70's of the same issuance are better than others (like getting a CAC on one 70 and not the others) once you get to the top grade there should be nothing better or as good as.
Please, let's go back to one label per service, just because some political appointee let's you print their signature on a piece of paper it should not be worth one cent more, because it's about the coin, right? right?? Really it's worth more because the label Is prettier, say it ain't so P.T. Barnum, say there wasn't another one born a minute ago...
Until we figure that one out we can never have meaningful change.
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@neildrobertson said:
I'd adopt what they do for NGC ancients. I would give grades on 3-5 factors and validate authenticity, but not provide a net or total grade.
This would avoid the whole AU-MS slider problem, coins that are graded low because they have wear but are still better than UNC coins.
In US coinage, I think this makes sense for colonials, territorial gold and maybe early copper which are dominated by EAC collectors anyway.
I would also do this for many world coins, such as cobs and pillars, given that a noticeable proportion of the collector base is outside of the US, doesn't use the same standard of "market acceptability" and often doesn't even like TPG anyway. NGC grades medieval coin other than Byzantine using the Sheldon scale which doesn't make any sense either.
I would also stop using all MS grades and go back to what I saw when I first encountered the 70 point scale in the 70's: 60, 63, 65 and 67. I would also get rid of plus grades.
No matter how advanced grading (technical and/or market) becomes [either through the efforts and talents of humans and/or the ever advancing power of computers] there will never be "consensus or agreement" on the "grade" (however that term is defined) of a coin.
The reason why is that you have humans involved (buyers, sellers, dealers, collectors, investors, speculators, con men, thieves, heirs, numismatic historians, government officials, museum curators, etc) who all have different needs, wants, desires, agendas, egos, motivations, experience, knowledge, education, sophistication, etc.
If there was consensus and agreement on the grade of a coin that would make the hobby somewhat dull and boring. The forums would certainly be less interesting and entertaining.
For myself I would like to see technical grading with specific published criteria for each series of coinage that hobbyists can refer to when they assess any particular coin. That would help them be able to determine if a given coin warrants or does not warrant a grade of, for example, MS65.
Not all 65's are the same and subjective criteria, like eye appeal or toning, can be applied to assist one to evaluate the coin to determine what its "market grade" would be (however you define that term).
The continuing evolution of grading (pluses, stars, stickers, first strike,etc.) to further differentiate coins with the same numerical grade in the market in order to sell them will reach a point of diminishing success. Eventually the hobby will say enough. Corrections will take place and the hobby will reset, or maybe a better term would "continue to evolve or devolve".
@mannie gray said:
I would make strike a much smaller part of the technical grade.
Like 10% or so.
Ok....more like 5%.🙂
AFAIK, That has happened long ago. At one time, coins with weakness were limited to MS-64. Now, unless the strike is actually "flat" almost anything goes - often as high as MS-66.
Funny thing how grading is evolving. In the "true" technical system, the strike was hardly a factor at all until it became "flat." In that case, the coin was graded MS-whatever, flat strike.
@mustangmanbob said:
No coin with color less than 50 years old gets a grade. Whilst a few tone "naturally" it is still a degradation of the surface.
Not even addressing Little Homemaker bake oven specials.
I actually like this idea....
...Except that it would encourage dipping, which probably isn't something that should be promoted.
Coins have been dipped in various solutions long before the commercial dips were formulated! Perhaps someday when toning indicates some form of alteration (either natural or helped along) and falls out of favor, coins will be all be dipped again.
@mannie gray said:
I would make strike a much smaller part of the technical grade.
Like 10% or so.
Ok....more like 5%.🙂
AFAIK, That has happened long ago. At one time, coins with weakness were limited to MS-64. Now, unless the strike is actually "flat" almost anything goes - often as high as MS-66.
Funny thing how grading is evolving. In the "true" technical system, the strike was hardly a factor at all until it became "flat." In that case, the coin was graded MS-whatever, flat strike.
For market grading, I take the opposite position. I recently saw a coin appear in the NGC Census that I thought I wanted to buy, as I thought it was the one I originally saw on eBay in March 2002 but now in holder. It appeared of all places in a Polish auction but when I saw the images, no way I would grade it AU-53. The strike is terrible so it might be the correct technical grade but I would rate it a VF-30. There is also another date in the same series up for sale on Heritage which is worse than the PCGS XF-45 I own and the NGC XF-40. It's graded AU-50 and also has a somewhat weak strike.
I prefer better strikes and surface color over slight wear and limited contact marks.
Thanks again for your comments, they are exactly what I asked for. As one member pointed out, nothing will be changed by this discussion but I hoped members would discuss each of the suggestions (as I'm doing now) after they were posted.
1) Remove all human elements from the grading process. Automate everything in the grading process with computers, starting with a scientific verification of the metallic contents and age of the coin to be graded.
At least two companies have researched this and one claimed to do it. It did not work in spite of all the money burned on the idea. at this time, computers need folks to program them, feed coins into them, and ship them back. Robots and computers don't get the job done alone. The ONLY thing a computer can do is to "map" a coin for identification and store it. That way vertually every coin that is not significantly changed can be ID'ed and graded the same as before.
2) All coins would have, similar to PCGS' Photograde, an established database for technical definitions of MS70 and descending grades from there.
There are so many variables of any grade that an established database for each coin type within each grade would be huge. Even then establishing standards would be the easy part. Getting folks to use it would be almost impossible. Last week I had a 19th Century dime that graded G-4/P-1! Put that into a standard.
3) "Wear" and "luster" would be machine-determined and laser-measured against what a hypothetical MS70 would be.
Friction wear, stacking rub, cabinet friction, and strike weakness will confuse the computer just as the different degrees of reflectivity from all types of surfaces. In many cases the human eye prefers a cleaned coin over an original specimen. Humans program the computer.
4) Contact marks on the coin would be quantifiably measured by both depth, length, and severity, which would NOT be linearly-correlated with a detraction in grade._
Actually, all the attributes you describe are already used to determine the grade including something not mentioned - their LOCATION.
4a) Contact marks and scratches which are too light to count as more than a hairline would subtract somewhere in the 0.10 to 0.25 off of overall grade, per hairline; however if the hairlines were indicative of cleaning, then per standards the coin would be "not gradeable" and simply receive a Details slab.
I don't comment on decimal nonsense but they are sure to come.
4b) Contact marks and scratches which have a depth equal to, or in excess of, 12.5% of the overall thickness of the coin would be disqualified from grading and receive a "Details" grade.
4c) Contact marks and scratches which touch only the fields, rather than the devices, would subtract between 1 and 5 points off the grade, varying based on total quantity of marks and their respective severity, and also interference with luster.
4d) Contact marks and scratches which touch the devices would subtract between 3 and 10 points, depending on the total quantity of marks and their respective severity, and also interference with luster.
It is amazing to realize that most of these calculations are already done by professionals, dealers, and knowledgeable collectors in a matter of a few seconds.
4e) Any contact mark or scratch determined to be "graffiti" would render the coin "not gradeable" and simply receive a Details slab.
This is already done.
5) "Rub" on a coin will not cause a coin to be considered "AU" unless the rub removes at least 1% of the thickness of the coin (as compared to an MS70 coin), or 5% of the relief height, whichever is a greater amount (this will vary by coin).
You would make an excellent dealer. It is important to be able to overlook "rub" on a coin so it can be sold as MS! If you don't wish to play that game you can rely on a commercially graded coin to do it for you.
5a) Any coin with rub below the minimum can still be considered MS, but will still lose a minimum of 3 points, and can lose as much as 15 points if it has enough contact marks, particularly on the devices. Luster can add 3 to 10 points, depending on intensity and distribution. The net balance will determine the grade.
5b) Any coin with rub at or above the minimum cannot be considered MS, and will lose at least 12 to 20 points. Luster can add 3 to 8 points, but the coin cannot exceed a net grade of AU58 under any circumstances. Coins with significant contact marks will be limited to AU50-AU53 grades.
It's late and this is getting very tedious so see #5 above.
6) All coins with "soft strikes" will never be considered to be above MS67, regardless of contact marks or luster. Though they can receive a "star" (*) designation for excellent eye appeal (scientifically measured by luster and contact marks).
This is probably already done.
6a) Any coin with a slightly-soft strike will lose 1 to 10 points, depending on the amount of details absent from the strike.
10 points cover a lot of the grade ranges. You may want to lowere the number of points lost for strike.
7) Off-center strikes will be considered ungradeable, Details-only, given that parts of the original design are missing and the void their absence creates on the fields of the planchet constitute an unrecognizable component to the grading process.
Then I guess we won't be grading many of the common mint errors.
8) Disparities between the grade of the obverse and the reverse would be averaged to the median.
Ever see one of those common MS-62/68 Morgan dollars? They are not graded MS-65, 64, or even 63 because the are only considered to be MS-62's!
The bottom line is that grading would become a quantifiable science, rather than a subjective interpretation made by humans. It would also help to remove the fears of "grader bias" both in favor of their friends or "big clients" for grading firms, and against small-time collectors or submitters, by removing the human element and therefore perceived-bias from the grading process.
Now, that is a nice thought. If you could do it (aside from 1-8), I'd vote for you to be in charge of all grading.
Coins should be graded on their absolute perfection, and not based upon their condition as minted. Die polish lines should be a deduction in grade just as hairlines are. Planchet defects should be graded as a scratch. Soft strikes should be graded as wear. Mint defects should decrease the technical grade of a coin just as they do on the grading of a modern PR coin.
Toning quality should be an absolute technical grade, ranging from -points for AT coins, to neutral points for common tarnish, to plus points for nicely toned coins with great eye appeal.
Color designation on copper coins should only reflect their eye appeal ranging from questionable color as a negative to eye appealing toning as a positive, whether it be "original" red or irredescent colored. No BN/RB/RD standard.
Traditional standards will not be well understood by new collectors. Grading standards need to be much more obvious.
@MrEureka said:
I’d probably get rid of the color designation on copper and leave the rest alone.
Yikes! Are you kidding about color? If not, when you have time, please explain why?
First, color, like toning, is self-evident.
Second, there are an infinite number of colors, but the TPGs try to break it down to only 3. That's silly. It can also lead less sophisticated buyers to overpay for a coin that just barely got graded "RD".
Third, color can change over time.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Unfortunately, the color of copper has been tied to value. TPGS claim to put a value on coins. Before the TPGS's color was very easy to determine. Full red, until as soon as a touch of toning all the way down to just a touch of red was RB. Then Brown. It didn't matter about the orange, green or dark shades. With a little instruction, everyone can understand full red or full brown.
This nonsense about % of color is another complication cooked up by coin dealers to make sure their opinion was needed. Same goes for value. Only folks deeply involved in the business know what a coin is actually worth in any grade. Published prices are just "guides."
Example: I just graded a brilliant 1896-O $1 AU-58. It had a slight trace of rub (dull gray under florescent light) on the breast and over the ear. AU price around $300. MS price $1500 & up.
If this coin were an 1896-P in the same condition, I would have graded it as a commercial MS-62. AU price $35. MS $40 and MS-63 $45! This AU (1896-P) in the same condition as the 96-O would go out of here as a 62 or 63. However, so I don't feel like a grading whore, in the notes for the finalizer, I would write w/rub (AU).
I would like to see two grades, technical and market grade. Nice to have not essential. Would be interesting to see the market react.
Computer grading, or at least computer assisted grading will happen someday. Going down the photo path for grading is a red herring though. It needs to be true mapping of the surface including specular attributes using a profilometer or similar tool. Probably a multi tool analysis.
What REALLY needs to happen though is calibration. Maybe this is done already, I don't know. But graders should recertify every year or so. A large battery of test coins should be reserved for this purpose. Any measurement worth its salt should have a calibration step. Clearly there has been measurement drift over the years. This shouldn't be.
Unless it's extremely minor, I'd label all toned/tarnished coins as environmentally damage. I'm not sure I'd even give them a grade. (Just like a harshly cleaned coin) I probably label them as genuine, like a cleaned coin, but "label them" as environmentally damaged without a grade.
I'd much rather have a naturally circulated coin for any particular date in XF or AU rather than any MS graded coin of the same date with any significant toning.
Or at a minimum, I would not allow any significantly toned/tarnished coin to carry any MS designation.
@CCGGG said:
Unless it's extremely minor, I'd label all toned/tarnished coins as environmentally damage. I'm not sure I'd even give them a grade. (Just like a harshly cleaned coin) I probably label them as genuine, like a cleaned coin, but "label them" as environmentally damaged without a grade.
I'd much rather have a naturally circulated coin for any particular date in XF or AU rather than any MS graded coin of the same date with any significant toning.
Or at a minimum, I would not allow any significantly toned/tarnished coin to carry any MS designation.
I would grade like many of the Colonial guys do- no points but just grades like Fine versus F-12 or F-15 and a description of any damage. I would eliminate the 70 point scale and surely not go to 100!!!
As an early copper collector it boggles my mind how humans can determine the spread between MS-67 and MS-68 on Morgans and others where splitting hairs means the difference of thousands of dollars and promotes the constant crack-outs and resubmissions. Probably good for the TPG’s though!
I do agree with the TPG’s guaranteeing authenticity, as I have a couple of “authenticity challenged” examples in genuine holders and the guarantee does protect the purchaser’s investment.
@burfle23 said:
I would grade like many of the Colonial guys do- no points but just grades like Fine versus F-12 or F-15 and a description of any damage. I would eliminate the 70 point scale and surely not go to 100!!!
As an early copper collector it boggles my mind how humans can determine the spread between MS-67 and MS-68 on Morgans and others where splitting hairs means the difference of thousands of dollars and promotes the constant crack-outs and resubmissions. Probably good for the TPG’s though!
I do agree with the TPG’s guaranteeing authenticity, as I have a couple of “authenticity challenged” examples in genuine holders and the guarantee does protect the purchaser’s investment.
I agree. I wish there was no distinction within each grade. Usually I look at a coin and it is graded almost before I REALLY look at it! Picking out a major grade is easy, fast, and leaves little room for disagreement.
Then. I must look at the already determined and obvious VF coin because I need to pick out 20, 25, 30, or 35!
As for the difference between 70, 69, and 68. the difference is easy to teach and understand if you are a strict technical grader. Unfortunately, once value and eye appeal entered the equation, I've seen too many 64's & 65's graded a lot higher. I can think of one perfect example of a coin jumping 3 to 4 MS grades.
Additionally, I would put a time limit on the authenticity guarantee. Perhaps, twenty years max because some folks like to collect authentication errors. As prices go up, if someone does not wish to fix the error, let them keep the coin as is with a void guarantee.
@CCGGG said:
Unless it's extremely minor, I'd label all toned/tarnished coins as environmentally damage. I'm not sure I'd even give them a grade. (Just like a harshly cleaned coin) I probably label them as genuine, like a cleaned coin, but "label them" as environmentally damaged without a grade.
I'd much rather have a naturally circulated coin for any particular date in XF or AU rather than any MS graded coin of the same date with any significant toning.
Or at a minimum, I would not allow any significantly toned/tarnished coin to carry any MS designation.
What do you collect?
Mostly Morgans, Lincolns, Buffalo's, Franklin's and some odds and ends.
@CCGGG said:
Unless it's extremely minor, I'd label all toned/tarnished coins as environmentally damage. I'm not sure I'd even give them a grade. (Just like a harshly cleaned coin) I probably label them as genuine, like a cleaned coin, but "label them" as environmentally damaged without a grade.
I'd much rather have a naturally circulated coin for any particular date in XF or AU rather than any MS graded coin of the same date with any significant toning.
Or at a minimum, I would not allow any significantly toned/tarnished coin to carry any MS designation.
What do you collect?
Mostly Morgans, Lincolns, Buffalo's, Franklin's and some odds and ends.
Me too, especially the odds, ends, and counterfeits.
If that’s the case, I challenge you to build a collection full of the most homely graded coins you can find, paying full fair market value for the grade along the way.
Don’t have a grading system that has unused grades like 13 ,14, 16, etc. Get rid of pluses - hard enough to be consistent with whole numbers let alone pluses. Don’t upgrade a coin for color, grade it on its merits.
If that’s the case, I challenge you to build a collection full of the most homely graded coins you can find, paying full fair market value for the grade along the way.
To a true collector, there is no such thing as a homely coin. Even the ones from a broken die marriage.
If that’s the case, I challenge you to build a collection full of the most homely graded coins you can find, paying full fair market value for the grade along the way.
To a true collector, there is no such thing as a homely coin. Even the ones from a broken die marriage.
I guess that explains why I love low grade, corroded coins.
Just as FB indicates "full bands" I'd have something similar for saints.
A single letter would indicate the appearance of Miss Liberty's nose.
M = MICHELANGELO
..... As a young art critic he insulted a fellow painter and was hit so hard that it permanently & severely flattened his nose.
K = KATE ELDER
..... AKA "Big nose Kate" had a bulbous nose that looked like a Hobo/Wineo nose (Doc Holliday's girlfriend owned brothel)
C = CYRANO DE BERGERAC
..... French poet that had a boxer's, crooked & broken type nose (said to have fought 1000 duels over it)
T = TYCHO BRAHE
..... Danish astronomer 14th century had a horribly mangled nose from a sword fight.
G = Grace Kelly
..... No explanation necessary
Comments
@Insider2 . Fair enough, I really didn’t mean to sound condescending and conformity has never been my strong suit. It’s just hard to imagine at this point “they” will make any changes to the grading procedures but, let me chug a few more beers and get my idea hat back on straight.
Follow up to another post:
CAC will need to follow suit with some sort of stamp or chop mark or else become irrelevant. have you ever put a sticker on your stainless steel refrigerator :-)
@CoinscratchFever said: "Fair enough, I really didn’t mean to sound condescending and conformity has never been my strong suit. It’s just hard to imagine at this point “they” will make any changes to the grading procedures but, let me chug a few more beers and get my idea hat back on straight."
I agree. So I began..."This is an exercise in fantasy as we cannot change anything that is being done at this time.
Nevertheless, a discussion on anything often brings up a lot of things many may never think about. Wink.
You ask people for their opinion of what they would change if they were in charge of the grading standards and process, and when the first person here to describe in significant detail what they would do, and gives you what you asked for, you reply with a snarky remark and indicate that you didn't even read the comment.
Why ask for ideas if you're going to denigrate the replies you receive, and insult the people who wrote them?
I regret posting on your thread now. It's clear that you don't care for answers you asked for, you just want to laugh at any suggestion that isn't your own.
Goodbye.
Get rid of the Sheldon number system of grading is what I would do. Replace it with words.
Examples: MS 62 is "select uncirculated." VF 20 and VF 25 is "very fine." VF 30 and VF 35 is "choice very fine."
The only number a coin needs is its price.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Get a norm established so every TPG, collector or whatever would have to grade based on the same rules and guidelines.
If that is not possible, then get a norm established based on the Top TPG( our host) guidelines and make it law!!
Hello, Redstone,
Everyone has an opinion. As I wrote above, I'm VERY INTERESTED to hear what Mr. Hall had to say. He is one of the founders of PCGS and his ideas have changed the entire coin industry. I'm very sorry you feel slighted but so far, in my opinion, your very enjoyable posts do not approach anything Mr. Hall would have said.
Nevertheless
As I wrote above, I'm going to respond fully to your
very thoughtful ideas during my "Happy Hour" one evening this weekend. 
Thanks again for taking the time to post. Good Night.
Out source it to PCGS
Www.killermarbles.com
Www.suncitycoin.com
I know which hand fills up first!
Market grading. A 64 with toning should be labeled a 66+.
@Insider2 . There is a reason PCGS is el numero uno, actually probably several. I see a lot of new & old ideas (including my own) and some because you task us to think outside the box from time to time
but, after careful thought of each I keep realizing that "they" have already thought these through, the system is tried and true. 
One great idea may sound wonderful but, there is always another reason why it is not such a great idea. Sometimes from a monetary stand point and sometimes from a longevity stand point which also points back to money. And I hate to keep beating a dead horse (the poor little guy).
But and for now, I still believe the way around chinese chicken (fakes) is a new slab, the same size of course, with a metal casing around the edges, with a metal signature, possibly even with designer styles. One that does not open and cannot be reproduced, period. Okay so now your burning my reconsideration fees. That's okay, as a customer I don't mind spending $500 to case my $10,000 and + coin and from the finest coin grading service in the world. Sorry not sorry CAC, the case in of itself brings the premiums and security.
And to answer your question, oh never-mind I just did
Then come the legacy premiums later such as the rattlers etc.
I would make strike a much smaller part of the technical grade.
Like 10% or so.
Ok....more like 5%.🙂
What if the market changes? Chaos ensues
A coin shouldn't be bumped up a grade or two if has attractive luster, while at the same time, has too many hits on its fields to support the higher grade. I've seen several MS 67 type coins which fit this description.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
How about, "a deep pocket market maker backs the Grade they assign with firm and slow-changing bid and ask prices for all the so-certified coins (grade number) sight unseen, regardless of the coins' appearance, whether premium or problem, the grade number determines both the Ex-pert Quality AND liquid Value"?
I'd be a much more active collector if that were the case.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Current system seems fine to me!
How about making a 70 Grade, Mint State or Proof rare again, like it was twenty years ago, this would be left to the true museum piece that it should be, not something that you can presale a hundred of on eBay knowing if you submit two hundred coins straight from the mint you are sure to get at least a hundred and ten 70's.
Could you imagine if in 2001 you did a presale for Proof 70 Silver Eagles, you would be laughed off the boards. In fact as I recall that's close to what self slabbers were doing at the time, but at least they waited until they had the coins in hand.
Do you believe that some Proof 70's of the same issuance are better than others (like getting a CAC on one 70 and not the others) once you get to the top grade there should be nothing better or as good as.
Please, let's go back to one label per service, just because some political appointee let's you print their signature on a piece of paper it should not be worth one cent more, because it's about the coin, right? right?? Really it's worth more because the label Is prettier, say it ain't so P.T. Barnum, say there wasn't another one born a minute ago...
Until we figure that one out we can never have meaningful change.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
I am the final authority when I make a buy decision.
No coin with color less than 50 years old gets a grade. Whilst a few tone "naturally" it is still a degradation of the surface.
Not even addressing Little Homemaker bake oven specials.
I actually like this idea....
...Except that it would encourage dipping, which probably isn't something that should be promoted.
In US coinage, I think this makes sense for colonials, territorial gold and maybe early copper which are dominated by EAC collectors anyway.
I would also do this for many world coins, such as cobs and pillars, given that a noticeable proportion of the collector base is outside of the US, doesn't use the same standard of "market acceptability" and often doesn't even like TPG anyway. NGC grades medieval coin other than Byzantine using the Sheldon scale which doesn't make any sense either.
I would also stop using all MS grades and go back to what I saw when I first encountered the 70 point scale in the 70's: 60, 63, 65 and 67. I would also get rid of plus grades.
No matter how advanced grading (technical and/or market) becomes [either through the efforts and talents of humans and/or the ever advancing power of computers] there will never be "consensus or agreement" on the "grade" (however that term is defined) of a coin.
The reason why is that you have humans involved (buyers, sellers, dealers, collectors, investors, speculators, con men, thieves, heirs, numismatic historians, government officials, museum curators, etc) who all have different needs, wants, desires, agendas, egos, motivations, experience, knowledge, education, sophistication, etc.
If there was consensus and agreement on the grade of a coin that would make the hobby somewhat dull and boring. The forums would certainly be less interesting and entertaining.
For myself I would like to see technical grading with specific published criteria for each series of coinage that hobbyists can refer to when they assess any particular coin. That would help them be able to determine if a given coin warrants or does not warrant a grade of, for example, MS65.
Not all 65's are the same and subjective criteria, like eye appeal or toning, can be applied to assist one to evaluate the coin to determine what its "market grade" would be (however you define that term).
The continuing evolution of grading (pluses, stars, stickers, first strike,etc.) to further differentiate coins with the same numerical grade in the market in order to sell them will reach a point of diminishing success. Eventually the hobby will say enough. Corrections will take place and the hobby will reset, or maybe a better term would "continue to evolve or devolve".
AFAIK, That has happened long ago. At one time, coins with weakness were limited to MS-64. Now, unless the strike is actually "flat" almost anything goes - often as high as MS-66.
Funny thing how grading is evolving. In the "true" technical system, the strike was hardly a factor at all until it became "flat." In that case, the coin was graded MS-whatever, flat strike.
Coins have been dipped in various solutions long before the commercial dips were formulated! Perhaps someday when toning indicates some form of alteration (either natural or helped along) and falls out of favor, coins will be all be dipped again.
For market grading, I take the opposite position. I recently saw a coin appear in the NGC Census that I thought I wanted to buy, as I thought it was the one I originally saw on eBay in March 2002 but now in holder. It appeared of all places in a Polish auction but when I saw the images, no way I would grade it AU-53. The strike is terrible so it might be the correct technical grade but I would rate it a VF-30. There is also another date in the same series up for sale on Heritage which is worse than the PCGS XF-45 I own and the NGC XF-40. It's graded AU-50 and also has a somewhat weak strike.
I prefer better strikes and surface color over slight wear and limited contact marks.
Ok, I've been putting this off long enough.
Redstone,
Thanks again for your comments, they are exactly what I asked for. As one member pointed out, nothing will be changed by this discussion but I hoped members would discuss each of the suggestions (as I'm doing now) after they were posted.
1) Remove all human elements from the grading process. Automate everything in the grading process with computers, starting with a scientific verification of the metallic contents and age of the coin to be graded.
At least two companies have researched this and one claimed to do it. It did not work in spite of all the money burned on the idea. at this time, computers need folks to program them, feed coins into them, and ship them back. Robots and computers don't get the job done alone. The ONLY thing a computer can do is to "map" a coin for identification and store it. That way vertually every coin that is not significantly changed can be ID'ed and graded the same as before.
2) All coins would have, similar to PCGS' Photograde, an established database for technical definitions of MS70 and descending grades from there.
There are so many variables of any grade that an established database for each coin type within each grade would be huge. Even then establishing standards would be the easy part. Getting folks to use it would be almost impossible. Last week I had a 19th Century dime that graded G-4/P-1! Put that into a standard.
3) "Wear" and "luster" would be machine-determined and laser-measured against what a hypothetical MS70 would be.
Friction wear, stacking rub, cabinet friction, and strike weakness will confuse the computer just as the different degrees of reflectivity from all types of surfaces. In many cases the human eye prefers a cleaned coin over an original specimen. Humans program the computer.
4) Contact marks on the coin would be quantifiably measured by both depth, length, and severity, which would NOT be linearly-correlated with a detraction in grade._
Actually, all the attributes you describe are already used to determine the grade including something not mentioned - their LOCATION.
4a) Contact marks and scratches which are too light to count as more than a hairline would subtract somewhere in the 0.10 to 0.25 off of overall grade, per hairline; however if the hairlines were indicative of cleaning, then per standards the coin would be "not gradeable" and simply receive a Details slab.
I don't comment on decimal nonsense but they are sure to come.
4b) Contact marks and scratches which have a depth equal to, or in excess of, 12.5% of the overall thickness of the coin would be disqualified from grading and receive a "Details" grade.
4c) Contact marks and scratches which touch only the fields, rather than the devices, would subtract between 1 and 5 points off the grade, varying based on total quantity of marks and their respective severity, and also interference with luster.
4d) Contact marks and scratches which touch the devices would subtract between 3 and 10 points, depending on the total quantity of marks and their respective severity, and also interference with luster.
It is amazing to realize that most of these calculations are already done by professionals, dealers, and knowledgeable collectors in a matter of a few seconds.
4e) Any contact mark or scratch determined to be "graffiti" would render the coin "not gradeable" and simply receive a Details slab.
This is already done.
5) "Rub" on a coin will not cause a coin to be considered "AU" unless the rub removes at least 1% of the thickness of the coin (as compared to an MS70 coin), or 5% of the relief height, whichever is a greater amount (this will vary by coin).
You would make an excellent dealer. It is important to be able to overlook "rub" on a coin so it can be sold as MS! If you don't wish to play that game you can rely on a commercially graded coin to do it for you.
5a) Any coin with rub below the minimum can still be considered MS, but will still lose a minimum of 3 points, and can lose as much as 15 points if it has enough contact marks, particularly on the devices. Luster can add 3 to 10 points, depending on intensity and distribution. The net balance will determine the grade.
5b) Any coin with rub at or above the minimum cannot be considered MS, and will lose at least 12 to 20 points. Luster can add 3 to 8 points, but the coin cannot exceed a net grade of AU58 under any circumstances. Coins with significant contact marks will be limited to AU50-AU53 grades.
It's late and this is getting very tedious so see #5 above.
6) All coins with "soft strikes" will never be considered to be above MS67, regardless of contact marks or luster. Though they can receive a "star" (*) designation for excellent eye appeal (scientifically measured by luster and contact marks).
This is probably already done.
6a) Any coin with a slightly-soft strike will lose 1 to 10 points, depending on the amount of details absent from the strike.
10 points cover a lot of the grade ranges. You may want to lowere the number of points lost for strike.
7) Off-center strikes will be considered ungradeable, Details-only, given that parts of the original design are missing and the void their absence creates on the fields of the planchet constitute an unrecognizable component to the grading process.
Then I guess we won't be grading many of the common mint errors.
8) Disparities between the grade of the obverse and the reverse would be averaged to the median.
Ever see one of those common MS-62/68 Morgan dollars? They are not graded MS-65, 64, or even 63 because the are only considered to be MS-62's!
The bottom line is that grading would become a quantifiable science, rather than a subjective interpretation made by humans. It would also help to remove the fears of "grader bias" both in favor of their friends or "big clients" for grading firms, and against small-time collectors or submitters, by removing the human element and therefore perceived-bias from the grading process.
Now, that is a nice thought. If you could do it (aside from 1-8), I'd vote for you to be in charge of all grading.
I’d probably get rid of the color designation on copper and leave the rest alone.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A few controversial ideas........
Traditional standards will not be well understood by new collectors. Grading standards need to be much more obvious.
OINK
Yikes! Are you kidding about color? If not, when you have time, please explain why?
First, color, like toning, is self-evident.
Second, there are an infinite number of colors, but the TPGs try to break it down to only 3. That's silly. It can also lead less sophisticated buyers to overpay for a coin that just barely got graded "RD".
Third, color can change over time.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Unfortunately, the color of copper has been tied to value. TPGS claim to put a value on coins. Before the TPGS's color was very easy to determine. Full red, until as soon as a touch of toning all the way down to just a touch of red was RB. Then Brown. It didn't matter about the orange, green or dark shades. With a little instruction, everyone can understand full red or full brown.
This nonsense about % of color is another complication cooked up by coin dealers to make sure their opinion was needed. Same goes for value. Only folks deeply involved in the business know what a coin is actually worth in any grade. Published prices are just "guides."
Example: I just graded a brilliant 1896-O $1 AU-58. It had a slight trace of rub (dull gray under florescent light) on the breast and over the ear. AU price around $300. MS price $1500 & up.
If this coin were an 1896-P in the same condition, I would have graded it as a commercial MS-62. AU price $35. MS $40 and MS-63 $45! This AU (1896-P) in the same condition as the 96-O would go out of here as a 62 or 63. However, so I don't feel like a grading whore, in the notes for the finalizer, I would write w/rub (AU).
No grade bumps for rare dates/denominations or coins with provenance.
I would like to see two grades, technical and market grade. Nice to have not essential. Would be interesting to see the market react.
Computer grading, or at least computer assisted grading will happen someday. Going down the photo path for grading is a red herring though. It needs to be true mapping of the surface including specular attributes using a profilometer or similar tool. Probably a multi tool analysis.
What REALLY needs to happen though is calibration. Maybe this is done already, I don't know. But graders should recertify every year or so. A large battery of test coins should be reserved for this purpose. Any measurement worth its salt should have a calibration step. Clearly there has been measurement drift over the years. This shouldn't be.
Aercus Numismatics - Certified coins for sale
Agree with some allowance for differences in "market acceptability".
Unless it's extremely minor, I'd label all toned/tarnished coins as environmentally damage. I'm not sure I'd even give them a grade. (Just like a harshly cleaned coin) I probably label them as genuine, like a cleaned coin, but "label them" as environmentally damaged without a grade.
I'd much rather have a naturally circulated coin for any particular date in XF or AU rather than any MS graded coin of the same date with any significant toning.
Or at a minimum, I would not allow any significantly toned/tarnished coin to carry any MS designation.
What do you collect?
I would grade like many of the Colonial guys do- no points but just grades like Fine versus F-12 or F-15 and a description of any damage. I would eliminate the 70 point scale and surely not go to 100!!!
As an early copper collector it boggles my mind how humans can determine the spread between MS-67 and MS-68 on Morgans and others where splitting hairs means the difference of thousands of dollars and promotes the constant crack-outs and resubmissions. Probably good for the TPG’s though!
I do agree with the TPG’s guaranteeing authenticity, as I have a couple of “authenticity challenged” examples in genuine holders and the guarantee does protect the purchaser’s investment.
I agree. I wish there was no distinction within each grade. Usually I look at a coin and it is graded almost before I REALLY look at it! Picking out a major grade is easy, fast, and leaves little room for disagreement.
Then. I must look at the already determined and obvious VF coin because I need to pick out 20, 25, 30, or 35!
As for the difference between 70, 69, and 68. the difference is easy to teach and understand if you are a strict technical grader. Unfortunately, once value and eye appeal entered the equation, I've seen too many 64's & 65's graded a lot higher. I can think of one perfect example of a coin jumping 3 to 4 MS grades.
Additionally, I would put a time limit on the authenticity guarantee. Perhaps, twenty years max because some folks like to collect authentication errors. As prices go up, if someone does not wish to fix the error, let them keep the coin as is with a void guarantee.
Mostly Morgans, Lincolns, Buffalo's, Franklin's and some odds and ends.
Me too, especially the odds, ends, and counterfeits.
If that’s the case, I challenge you to build a collection full of the most homely graded coins you can find, paying full fair market value for the grade along the way.
Don’t have a grading system that has unused grades like 13 ,14, 16, etc. Get rid of pluses - hard enough to be consistent with whole numbers let alone pluses. Don’t upgrade a coin for color, grade it on its merits.
To a true collector, there is no such thing as a homely coin. Even the ones from a broken die marriage.
I guess that explains why I love low grade, corroded coins.
Just as FB indicates "full bands" I'd have something similar for saints.
A single letter would indicate the appearance of Miss Liberty's nose.
M = MICHELANGELO
..... As a young art critic he insulted a fellow painter and was hit so hard that it permanently & severely flattened his nose.
K = KATE ELDER
..... AKA "Big nose Kate" had a bulbous nose that looked like a Hobo/Wineo nose (Doc Holliday's girlfriend owned brothel)
C = CYRANO DE BERGERAC
..... French poet that had a boxer's, crooked & broken type nose (said to have fought 1000 duels over it)
T = TYCHO BRAHE
..... Danish astronomer 14th century had a horribly mangled nose from a sword fight.
G = Grace Kelly
..... No explanation necessary
Here is an example of a MS66G saint
MS66K
My Saint Set