How can we improve how we display and describe our coins?
The coin industry in general, and as a result, the coin encapsulation business, has become complacent. I am wondering why more coin dealers and collectors are not pushing for meaningful changes.
Changes are needed that will have a meaningful impacts on how & what we can view, what criteria is evaluated, how we encapsulate and what is displayed - coins and other beautiful objects of art.
I will leave aside the issues associated with numerical grading and certification standards- for the moment. Their relevance is important and needs to be considered in the future of how coins are displayed and marketed.
Seems to me, when a coin or banknote or medal is “graded”, part of the designation bestowed upon said metal object - should be an indication of “beauty”.
IMHO, the “grade” of a coin is impacted by the original art (ie. Stamping dies / artist design work associated with) and needs to be reflected in the subjective opinions which will constitute a coins “full or true or natural or ???” state of existence.
Beauty, I hope is not a number, but a new set of descriptors that, if anyone is intestinal, we can discuss further.
When you spend near the cost of the coin you want graded to be “graded”, take a step back and reconsider. Chasing the almighty “highest possible numerical grade” by submitting your coins to a third party for a highly educated and subjective evaluation, can be dangerous to your financial health.
When you place a coin in a plastic with a label (which when combined is worth no more to the buyer of said object - than the object it encases), there is a “value added” issue that needs to be addressed.
I wonder now, what I was thinking as I broke up all the thousands of proof and mint sets over the years and submitted the little metal discs for someone else’s opinion and to be encapsulated. Sure,I got a lot of nice coins in plastic cases - some with very attractive features - especially the mint state 70 or proof 70 deep cameo features.
But, I and a lot of others, receive many more coins with less attractive intrinsic features, ie, grade 69 and below - this stratification has rendered most slabbed non 70 grade modern material that is designated less than 70, to have 0 or negative value impact on the coin in the plastic.
I realize this discussion (lamentation?) is mainly aimed at post 1964 coins. But others fall into the same trap...
I hope our host will allow this discussion to develop. My interest is in helping promote our precious hobby - and try to make a buck so I can keep building my collection.
HJP
Comments
"But, I and a lot of others, receive many more coins with less attractive intrinsic features, ie, grade 69 and below - this stratification has rendered most slabbed non 70 grade modern material that is designated less than 70, to have 0 or negative value impact on the coin in the plastic."......
Maybe because the supply of such post 64 coins is extreme and that more than anything impacts your perception of negative value.....
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
If your looking for a format to emulate the old Teletrade descriptions before their listings had photos may be a starting point.
You are basically looking for the next evolution in the TPG industry. A couple of points....Standards will be required, real, measurable and repeatable standards. Beauty is subjective and not a measurable criteria, so should not be part of a grade. I believe the future is still beyond the horizon....but it will come. Cheers, RickO
This borders on the nonsensical.
"Eye appeal" is already considered as part of the grade and also denoted with a star or a "PQ" or something of that nature. But "beauty" is a meaningless attribution for a 3rd party grade because it is unmeasureable.
I would also suggest that if your main goal is the pursuit of beauty, which is fine, save yourself a lot of time and money and DON'T SUBMIT FOR GRADING. If someone else putting a 69 on your "most beautiful coin ever" upsets you, then just avoid the trap.
You also mention spending "near the cost of the coin you want graded to be graded". Cost is irrelevant. If you put a $30 coin in a $30 holder, it is still a $30 coin. You do it because you want the slab for registry, or protection or whatever. The cost of the coin relative to the slab is irrelevant.
I buy and sell hundreds of slabbed coins per year. I also slab almost zero coins per year myself. Why? Because most of the coins I sell are $100 or under and it isn't worth slabbing them. When I sell coins that are $1000 or higher, I prefer to buy them already slabbed when possible.
Bulk submitters pay around $5 per coin for slabbing. I can't compete with them, so I don't. If I want a slabbed $30 coin, I buy it already slabbed for $30. I don't buy it raw for $20 and spend $30 slabbing it.
I think that beauty can be described, very well. Quantification is subjective. But so is coin grading.
Adequate descriptors can be utilized to express key “elements of beauty”.
This, the Elements of Beauty, is where some constructive discussion can begin...
Nonsense. Your wife is butt ugly to me but beautiful to you. How are we going to have that discussion objectively?
There is some subjectivity in all coin grading because it is done by humans. But there are also published standards that are pretty easy to understand: "full horn", "full liberty", etc.
For the sake of argument, explain to me the "elements of beauty" that make a 1932-1964 Washington quarter beautiful.
There are very few elements of beauty in the design of most modern coins, IMHO. High quality standings, yes. Art, not so much.
I seek to find ways to differentiate what many consider “beautiful” in order to increase the awareness of more people to the beauty of coins, no more & certainly no less.
Your 1st sentence alone betrays the folly of your thesis. That is YOUR OPINION, as you've stated yourself. So ends objectivity. QED
Yes, in my opinion I am opinionated.
Objectivity is found in accurate and complete descriptive information.
Good thing I'm not.
You can objectively describe the item. You cannot turn that description into "beauty".
If you want a pop culture example: Felicia Rashad. [Mrs. Huxtable on the old Bill Cosby show]
There was an article on aesthetics that argued that based on her lack of symmetry, etc. she was not beautiful. Yet many people considered her to be quite beautiful.
You will see similar arguments over someone like Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry.
It is a Fool's Errand.
This post reminds me of the member who thought every piece of bullion was suspect and went into great detail about SG testing, etc. Perhaps an alt?
I don't see the problem. I think a coin's
Eye appeal
(its beauty) is already considered in its grade despite its actual "technical" condition!
PS As to this: "But, I and a lot of others, receive many more coins with less attractive intrinsic features, ie, grade 69 and below - this stratification has rendered most slabbed non 70 grade modern material that is designated less than 70, to have 0 or negative value impact on the coin in the plastic."
It's possible that when millions of coins are made and 99.8 % are MS-68 and higher, Only the 70's are special because most cannot tell the difference between a 69 or 790!
I guess you did not understand the other member. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While I will agree that it is possible to find something that most think is beautiful and they can tell you the reason, there will always be others who don't agree. Therefore, what you propose may be an interesting discussion, but I cannot see anything coming from it.
BTW, you may have put your fingers on the problem you are trying to evaluate with some standard: "There are very few elements of beauty in the design of most modern coins. So, how do we evaluate something that scarce?
PS While you keep writing about elements of beauty, you have NOT bothered to define what these elements are.
IMO, we may as well be discussing SMOKE RINGS!
I apologize for being a bit diffuse in my presentation. I’m not used to posting much & see I have started 2 different discussions about the same thing.
I wish I could merge the 2 topics into 1 as the issues I’m bring forward will become more evident
Try to quantify beauty is difficult because we all have different opinions as to what is beautiful.
However, there are many descriptors that can help convey more accurately the essence of the work of art.
Hogwash?
I agree @Insider2 and @HJP .
A 70 grade assigned to a coin has no relationship to its beauty.
Its beauty is related only to its design elements and finish.
Carefully handled Innovation Dollars in proof and reverse proof finishes may attain 70 grade, but will never be considered beautiful. They are designed to teach, not to be beautiful.
Their "beauty" will be determined by how effectively the design leads one to want to learn the back story of the innovation.
On the other hand, even an XF45 St Gaudens eagle will always be beautiful. (except under magnification or in a slab, of course)
Actually, I disagree. I think the polio design is beautiful. Hence the problem.
I've also never been terribly fond of the slightly masculine Liberty on the St. Gauden. Especially in XF45.
PROBABLY yes. What you have just swerved into: "... there are many descriptors..." is the way it was done decades ago with flowery adjectives.
I would also add that there is zero originality in the St. Gauden design. Gee, I wonder why no one ever thought to have a Liberty obverse with an Eagle reverse before? Oh, right, Augustus had her standing instead of sitting.
There are very few U.S. coin designs that I would consider beautiful. The $20 saint is one of the few. This disagreement between just two members should convince @HJP what he seeks is fanciful.
I do like the eagle on the 20
There are words that can convey very precise descriptions of every single detail of a coins surface. Flowery language is for sakes, technical description is for accuracy if content
Please excuse my typos
Sub sales for sake
Sub of for if (fat finger problem)
I’m a technical person and understand very well how to describe a surface, feature, color...etc in a manner that is accurate and conveys the essence of what is needed for the reader to evaluate.
I pay extra for beautifully designed coins that are in the major error coin market.
I pay extra for the beauty of the error.
I pay extra for rainbow toning.
Please provide such a description. But no matter what you write, there is absolutely no assurance that others would see things the same way, if they were to view the coin you describe.
Frankly, I’m baffled that you could believe otherwise. There is very good justification for the expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Indeed, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think we can improve upon the way coins, banknotes & other collectibles are evaluated and encapsulated.
Without going into a lot of technical jargon that may not be interesting to some, as an example:
The phrase: Edge acquity means what to you?
How about:
“Spectral reflectance (In the visible light wavelength) is within the limits of naturally occurring oxides”
Or,
“The surfaces of this coin exhibit recent thermally induced grain boundary modifications as indicated by the change in surface texture and reflectance.
I looked it up before posting this reply. And to me, it has extremely limited relevance with respect to the comment of yours to which I replied: “I’m a technical person and understand very well how to describe a surface, feature, color...etc in a manner that is accurate and conveys the essence of what is needed for the reader to evaluate.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, I need to work on my verbal communication skills.
Edge acquity in context, as part of a descriptor, to me means the “relative sharpness of the edge surfaces and the clarity of contrast of multiple edge surfaces” on a coin.
This is one of the diagnostics used in semiconductors - at very high levels of resolution. By apply some aspects of semiconductor optical inspection technologies, we can open up a whole new world into exploring what make truly well struck & beautiful coins, great.
I'm starting to have flashbacks to 4Ts fake hyperspectral imaging.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen his movie?
Technical descriptions have little direct bearing on "beauty"
Yes, hogwash (since you asked ).
If you spend any amount of time here or any other coin forum you will see a very wide spectrum of what is considered worthy or attractive.
Any discussion about designs, subject matter, mintage, toning, etc. will always have people on two (or more) sides of an issue.
The best you could do is implement your proposals and see if they have any commercial success.
P.S. - Just because something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should be done.
I think it is UGLY and not well executed.
Not interested in technical description. ALMOST ANYONE can do that! Your post is about "beauty." I quote:
"I will leave aside the issues associated with numerical grading and certification standards- for the moment. Their relevance is important and needs to be considered in the future of how coins are displayed and marketed."
"Seems to me, when a coin or banknote or medal is “graded”, part of the designation bestowed upon said metal object - should be an indication of “beauty.”
"IMHO, the “grade” of a coin is impacted by the original art (ie. Stamping dies / artist design work associated with) and needs to be reflected in the subjective opinions which will constitute a coins “full or true or natural or ???” state of existence."
"_Beauty, I hope is not a number, but a new set of descriptors that, if anyone is intestinal, we can discuss further_."
** Give it a try.**
Absolutely NOTHING. I don't use $1 words when a 5c word works just as well. I'm not very smart.
Yawn. Perhaps you are posting on the wrong forum. AFAIK, the folks who spend the big money either know for themselves what a beautiful, well-struck coin looks like or they have others guiding/teaching them what to look for.
Thank you for the constructive criticism!
I was hoping to evoke some responses from those on this board who I respects and I appreciate it.
My quest, is a bit odd I know. I guess it’s the geek in me bleeding out into my coin collection obsession.
Yet further proof of the uselessness of this thread.
You have made a proposition. Let's bring "beauty" into the grading equation. A few posters have SUGGESTED it already is.
If you don't believe it, I've asked you to elaborate. I've also suggested that a long time ago lots of flowery words and symbols were used by dealers to sell coins in their ads. The market did away with it and has tried to condense all the words into a single number. While It does not work (all 65's are not the same or worth the same), it is the status quo.
Just for fun, why don't you open a major auction catalog to see what you have suggested on paper. It sure describes a coin better than a single # but it would not fit on most TPGS labels.
One day, a label may link to a video that when scanned, will describe coins in a very long paragraph. I just will not get to see it.
Thanks for your candor.
I’ll let this thread die & think about a more constructive way to bring forth what we are working on - quite diligently - in areas that directly correlate to coins. Among the investigations that can be digitally today is the ability for authentication, surface quality image capture & data processing and some level of quality attribution.
Many of these features are already in place.
1. When you enter a PCGS Cert # in the Cert Verification page, it uses their database to show any TrueView or Secure Plus photos, auction sales, and appearance in a Registry set. Some linked Heritage auctions have videos showing luster (on very high end coins).
2. Strike quality is classified for several series (full band dimes, full head standing quarters, full bell lines Franklin halves).
3. Proof surfaces are classified - regular, cameo, deep cameo.
4. Copper toning is classified based on % toned - brown, red brown, red.
5. Several major die varieties are classified automatically. Others are classified with a variety fee, essentially when it takes more time.
6. At one time and perhaps still, the Secure Plus grading service used a laser surface scan of the coin to save its signature. A "sniffer" is also used to check for the presence of chemicals. So the coin could be detected if it was graded a second time with the Secure Plus service (the scan signature matches even if the coin was subject to some level of alteration). The main problem is that this takes extra time and space in a database, so a fee is needed. And because it is not the default service, people could avoid detection by not using this service.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/785494/pcgs-coin-sniffer-uses-advanced-technology-to-detect-doctored-coins
"Eye appeal" (aka beauty) may be partly reflected in the grade,
when "market grading" is used to try to correlate with sales prices for very high end coins.
However, a more direct measure of quality / demand is right there in the sales prices.
(Although price realized is also subject to some randomness depending on who wanted the coin at that time).
And these sale prices are linked, unless the coin was cracked out and the Cert number changed.
In my half dime attribution guides, I trace top coins and prices across different holders.
Linkage like this for top coins might be nice in Auction Prices Realized, but people can already often do it themselves using the available auction photos.
Maybe start a registry of your coins?😊
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I'd rather own the absolute ugliest of 50 known than the 50th prettiest of 5 million known.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Many find beauty in the "$" sign.
A beautifully thought out idea and post.
I'm not sure anything will help the "post '64" or clad coin curse, or our hobby , for that matter.
Certainly a highest grade in plastic is worthy of it's place in the course of the hobby , but consider the"flooding" of the market with less than valuable coinage ( not even intrinsic value equal to the metal content) ... for over 50 years. And now add a premium on our "non circulating" dollars and halves, and voila. Here we are. More coins than collectors. More dealers than hobbyists. More looking to make a buck instead of saving one.
And while I'm here ranting, I'm still upset about the prezzie bucks never being adequately thought out with regards to living presidents. Lawmakers are silly. Rant over. I wanted a continuum.