Options
Net Grading
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
Come on old timers. Please chime in with your opinions. I'll get more specific with my personal situation in a different thread after I hear from you. But for now.....what do you think net grading is? And please also comment on the different services and your thoughts about if or how they approach it.
0
Comments
I support net grading, if it is done well, because it gives you a better idea of what the coin is worth.
The Early American Coppers people have the right idea. They give you a sharpness grade, a description of the problem and then a net grade. The trouble is you can't put all of that on a slab.
The worst situation is when you have, for example, a coin with EF sharpness and a problem that ends up in a VF-25 slab. I would rather have the coin in the the "no problem" VF-25 grade than the net graded piece.
Net grading is how you determine the value of the fish you caught.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
P.S. I miss Insider2. Forget about all his eccentricities...... he knew his stuff.....AND....he was a teacher at heart.
I like it, but I would like the criterion from each of the TPGs shown to see how different items are weighted.
If you are saying that all net grading smells like spoiled fish, I will have to disagree. If you have to have every early copper coin without a net grade, you purchases will be few and far between. Furthermore, if you have to have great coins, you need to have a very large check book.
I see a Chain Cent with some issues or problems yet in a straight holder.
That's 'net grading.'
I see a Morgan dollar with some issues or problems in a Genuine holder.
That's not 'net grading.'
peacockcoins
As memory serves, he was dead set against it so there is not much room for discussion.
Kind to tough to do since each case is unique. The rule of thumb for a long time has been been, if the problem is minor, it takes the coin down one grade. If it's major, the pit can get very deep.
I see EAC grading as the the last area from US Mint coinage where the TPG's do not arbitrarily define what is and what is not "market acceptable". This has been a complaint of mine with my primary interest (not US) where the supply of "market acceptable" examples is very low to (possibly) non-existent.
Net grading isn't something most collectors of US coinage need to concern themselves with because the coins are almost always available in (large to very large) quantity in "high" quality.
Agree and it makes perfect sense since presumably EAC collectors as the primary market have determined the coin is "market acceptable".
>
Agree again and this also makes perfect sense. No Morgan dollar except branch mint proofs is even close to actually being scarce. There is plenty of supply available without the noted problems which is presumably at least one reason why the buyer's opinion aligns with the TPG label.
Net grading is easy.
Look at the coin and figure out what it is worth TO YOU. Then look at the pricing guide you use and see where your value falls. Look at the listed grade for that price and you have YOUR net grade.
Ready with the fire extinguisher for all the “flames”.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
I think net grading is fine, but especially when the die varieties are rare or the redbook variety is rare. For example strawberry leaf cents.
When I see a "net-graded" early gold or branch mint gold coin, it usually equates to a coin with details or preservation level of a higher grade, but with some issues, whether it be an aggressive/improper dip or excessive handling marks/scratches, which means it'd be a hard pass for me.
I recently purchased a dipped and net-graded coin (an EF 40 1852-O half knocked back to VF35 for a gash, nicks, and hairlines) that was CAC approved as a VF35. It's a dipped and retoned CAC coin that I don't like much but I'm too lazy to return it. Hopefully, I can sell it to those who like and pay extra for a green bean. The seller's photos below hide the dings and hairlines but also its nice secondary toning.
Many pre 1815 coins I have seen are slabbed and net graded. Net grading is rarely acceptable to me. I must know about a particular coin / series and know what to expect for a particular grade, and the price of the coin is reasonable to me. The parts don't usually fit well based on what I've seen.
I spent 8 years looking for an AU Heraldic Eagle Dollar. I saw many which were lightly cleaned. Others which had the meat of an AU 58 which were bleached or had unnatural color, and were graded at AU 50.
You'll see more of this when you look at Unc. Draped Bust Half and Large Cents. Verdigris, pitted planchets, unnatural color. Sometimes I've found things more egregious than this on said coins.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
All grades are net grades just with different degrees of weighting per detriment. Some combos and amounts are deemed not market acceptable while others are compiled to a grade within a range.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It has these details and those surfaces and the other problems and despite that I want it probably because it's rare in any condition and I'd buy it as grade X price Equivalent
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
At least for early large cents, my experience is that the inconsistency is problematic. For example, I've seen coins that have many scratches that defy how it got straight graded, whereas another coin with a minor scratch is net graded.
You just need to decide for yourself what is acceptable to you and the commensurate value.
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown
I agree. But I was thinking along the lines him being a "Devil's Advocate." I do agree with you.
Yes......I think I see it in the Draped Bust Half. Unc? I know nothing about Large Cents.
Elcontador, in your opinion,......obverse or reverse? Which do graders focus more on in relation to net grading? Or maybe neither i.e.,....The same.
What's worse? A rim bump or hairlines? Unless everybody agrees on how much any particular defect affects the grade, net grading is silly.
So I guess just delineating between ‘minor’ and ‘major’ would be a good first step.
You are correct. Defining "minor" and "major" is a first step, but for those who have learned the fundamentals of grading and identifying defects fixed in their minds, that is not a huge hurdle.
Look at it this way. When you can tell the difference between a mint error and something created by car tires in a parking lot, you are on your way. Sadly some people, who have been schooled in the "Utube university of grading" have a hard time with that concept.
Interesting discussion. If a coin is slabbed, with a grade on the label, IMO, it is net graded....all things have been considered in making the decision at the TPG, and the grade assigned is the result of the positive and negative points observed. Ergo - net grade. A different method would be to assign a grade to each of the three sides. Of course, we also live with a system that has no standards, just aggregate opinions. Cheers, RickO
Personally I don't believe in a coin being net graded into a problem free holder. Just state the grade details and the problem.
I think a good argument for this is problems affect each person's opinions differently. Some absolutely won't tolerate a rim bump but be OK with a cleaning and vise versa!
but there is consensus that most people agree that PCGS's interpretation / standards are the best at least as a whole. Where individuals differ is when it comes to good enough to buy
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
So there is consensus except when there's a difference of opinion. Sounds about right.
They do this effectively with currency.
Wasn't there a time when a net grade had more to do with averaging the differing grades assignable to an obverse and reverse?
Maybe I am imagining things, but it seems that when ANACS ruled the TPG World there would actually be stated grades for the obverse and the reverse with a specifically stated "Net Grade" actually using that term.
Well, it's still better than a body bag like they used to do.
If they’re already market grading, why even use “details” holders? Just grade to the market (I say it like it’s easy).
If a coin was holdered as “Scratch - Net VF30” maybe there would become an acceptable market for such labelings.
There’s already a range of pricing within grades (high end MS62 versus low end, for example).
Anyone have a similar recolection?
Yes ANACS did show separate grades for the obverse and reverse, but that is not really the issue we are discussing here. The question is what effect does damage, that goes beyond what normal for the sharpness grade, have on the market grade, which could also be called a net grade?
The ANACS system was interesting from the standpoint that that grade could be different for each side of the coin. But, as a practical matter, the obverse has for more influence on the pricing or market grade than the reverse. A terrific reverse cannot usually pull up the grade of a coin, but a bad one can pull it down.
I always thought of that as “split grades”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To expound upon this example, there is a wide discrepancy between the TPG’s and hardcore EAC guys when it comes to assigning net grades.
Guys like Bob Grellman and Tom Reynolds are brutal, comparatively. A frosty brown Unc large cent with a couple tic marks is almost certainly going to be assigned a net AU grade, where the TPGs would grade it 63.
This is where your point about commensurate value comes into play. The EAC guy may grade his early large cent 'harshly', as say a VF, but it is likely to be priced as an XF.
My personal favorite example is my 1839 N-8 (that's the so called transitional Head of '40). Reynolds grade was XF45, priced as an AU, and I graded it AU58 when I was contemplating it. NGC later graded it MS61, today it's in a PCGS 53 holder. I still grade it 58, and would price it accordingly.
Now the hard part is, how do explain all this to the newer collector LOL?
If it can be straight graded (in other words "problem-free") then do so.
If there is a problem, details grade it and note the problem.
I never could find the reasoning behind EAC's "net grading" philosophy. It made absolutely no sense to me to assign a net grade based on something as ridiculous as color, or anything else they seem to come up with. That's the main reason I quit EAC years ago. I use ANA Grading Standards as a guide, currently the 7th edition. Just my humble opinion.
My OmniCoin Collection
My BankNoteBank Collection
Tom, formerly in Albuquerque, NM.
Thanks for the responses. At least now I can confirm I wasn't imagining things - at least as to ANACS assigning separate grades for the obverse and the reverse.
Question still though, was there in fact a "Net Grade" so stated on at least some coins in ANACS holders?
Yes, absolutely. They were problem coins in the old small (hotel soap) holder. The grade would be stated as, for example, Unc details cleaned net AU-55, or Very Fine details scratched net Fine-12 , or Fine details holed net fair-2. Although , of course , no one was forced to agree, Some found it useful to have an experienced 3rd party try to put some nuanced weighing to the impact of the damage.
"Unc details, cleaned" is a binary thing.
"Unc details, cleaned net AU58" is clearly at a different part of a spectrum from "Unc details, cleaned net VF-20". The former very lightly wiped, the latter well scrubbed with steel wool.
I do get that many collectors won't consider any problems, but for those that will contemplate buying a rare coin with compromises, the evaluation might be useful. I found it so and miss those holders.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I'm shopping for a nice wreath cent for my type set. I was aware of the latitude shown in some cases for early copper as I'm working on colonial copper type as well, but it makes it tough to shop grades. I see coins with the kind of granularity I expect on a details coin, I see scratches, strange coloration. I will need to be patient. I'm looking at chain cents as well, but not ready to pull the trigger. From what I've seen I will have to be REALLY patient to find one of those that I like. My net is that I don't care for net grading, nor do I particularly care for the often absurd numerical (gross) grades assigned to these old coins. (Is there really such thing as a "gem" pine tree shilling?) However, I don't have a solution and I'm happy.
Sorry for not getting back earlier on this. The problem is that people want these coins and over the years, many, some knowingly, some not, tried to "make them look nicer." There aren't enough with original skin to go around.
Revier, in his book about Bust $s, said something like 79% of them aren't original. I had to look for 8 years to find an original AU Heraldic Eagle Bust $, and the only reason I found one is that someone who is well placed in the business found it for me.
Re the pre 1815 Half and Large Cents, as with other coins, the obverse gets the bulk of the attention.
But per the above, people want these coins, and I think to some degree perceived market value has something to do with a coin's net grade. Another problem which follows from this is that market values of coins changes, so a coin net graded ten years after another one which looks the same could have another net grade.
As another poster commented above, there's quite a bit of what I believe to be inconsistency here. My solution, after I had one go bad eight years after being slabbed, is to avoid pre 1815 copper unless it's in a PCGS OGH or older holder. It's a pity, because my favorite coin design is the Classic Large Cent, and I'm not going to own one in the grade that interests me.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Consistency is the key.
Label severely damaged and harshly cleaned and everything else net grade.
In this age of information and ease of imaging nobody buys sight unseen.