So why don’t we have a standardized, repeatable grading standard?
TurtleCat
Posts: 4,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’ve seen it stated for years and years about how inadequate the current grading system is. People usually talk about a problem with net grading or maybe market grading.
So over the decades why hasn’t anyone devised a repeatable system for grading? It doesn’t have to bear any resemblance to the 70 point scale either. Someone could come up with something totally different. Why haven’t they?
I was thinking, could it be because we secretly want the squishy-ness and uncertainty with the current system? It certainly makes it easier to profit from under grading, over grading, or getting a coin’s grade changed by some means (including luck). Also it tends to work more in the dealer’s favor as they will have more accumulated knowledge.
I’m more and more thinking we have the system we have with all its imperfections because that’s what we really want as a numismatic community. If we didn’t really want it, someone would have created something better.
I’m curious how many people agree with me. I’m certain many will disagree and that’s fine. But I think I’m more right than not based on years of being in the community.
Comments
Your premise is flawed. We have a system. But any system implemented by humans will have some variation.
Because there are an infinite number of possible grade limiting considerations that can apply to each individual coin. And the various combinations of imperfections can’t be neatly and conveniently placed into precise boxes or grade measurements that will also apply to other coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Huh?
I think computer grading has been tried.
How do you make all potential elements that go into a grade to be entirely objective?
You should talk to Insider3 over on the CAC Forum, or maybe you are Insider3?
I don't feel our graders(collectively) are a problem. Like anything with a $ sign attached to it, greed becomes the major factor. I think most graders will place a major grade such as Fine, VeryFine, Extra Fine and so on with very little difference between agencies. But then you have VF 20 thru VF35 which can more than double the value of the coin for different levels of the same grade(and I understand a need for these interior grades). I have no problem with the current grading standard either. It would behoove our grading system managers to have a photograde that is accepted by all grading agencies, then we might finally have some equality and truly wouldn't need an agency that says the grade you paid for is satisfactory to them. A major pitfall is that all coins are not created equal, some have limited design features that make it hard to simply place them in the same grading characteristics as all others, thus the reason for a photograde(just using the name not the company) type system accepted by all agencies. Their appears to me to be no clear guide to "interior grades" in each grading level that is established across the board. To overhaul the complete system would be akin to going from SAE to Metric in my opinion and might very well damage our hobby beyond repair. I think improvement of the current system is needed, but don't try to replace it with another system designed by humans. Just my opinion.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
How do you imagine a grading system would be designed that didn't permit any "squishy-ness and uncertainty"?
Everything works in the favor of those with more knowledge.
Too many possible condition issues, even at the same grade, make this an impossibility. What's the grade difference between a 2mmx2mm rub at three o'clock on the obverse versus a 4mmx1mm rub on the reverse (as an example).
I’m not (should be obvious) but that thread did get me thinking some. Ultimately a grade is dependent upon the criteria one wishes to include or exclude. If we wanted we could easily define a grading system that excluded the highly subjective aspects. Or we could have one that is entirely subjective.
The point remains, people complain about market grading or technical grading or the inconsistency of the rules, etc. Why hasn’t a better system been devised? Doesn’t have to be computer grading. It just has to be a repeatable set of criteria.
Humans also invent and implement systems with astonishingly little variation as well. Otherwise we wouldn’t have computers and precision instruments…
The finger that points to the moon is not the moon.
How many different series of US coins are there?
Can we expect someone to be proficient in all of them? After all they would have to have intimate knowledge of striking and luster characteristics for the different dates, mints as well as specialized knowledge of the individual dies for the classic issues.
How’s that to begin? You would have to multiply multiple variables to come up with the correct answer. Couple that with individual biases on the “value” of differing marks Scratches minor rim nicks bag marks severity and location.
After all grading is an ART not a science.
Try defining “beautiful” or “enough”.
There will always be differing opinions. That’s what makes the hobby so dynamic. Without these differences there would be no reason to ever look at your coins and compare them to fellow collectors. You would merely look at your 73 digit grading number to see which coin was “better”.
Just an old timers opinion. 🤷♀️
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.
Why don't we have standardized opinions?
I know you’re not- I was just having some fun since that thread was simultaneously going on over there (and going nowhere)
Humans are imperfect
Dave
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
As long as grading equals money standardization is unlikely. Money can be made by buying using one standard and selling using another. This works because many/most collectors can't grade properly.
There are way too many variables, and different people assign different weight to each of those variables.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Would collectors and dealers be willing to eliminate eye appeal as a component of grading, in order to try to achieve a consistent, repeatable grading standard?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No. Eye appeal is important to most collectors. It's called market grading. Technical grading has been obsolete in the marketplace for some time now and I doubt that it'll be back any time soon. If an otherwise high grade mint state coin has ugly toning, most collectors will discount the price they'll pay for it. Grading has become a tool used to price coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
You are looking at it wrong. A single computer won't vary because it follows a code.. even if there are dire consequences. But 2 humans programming the same computer will get radically different outcomes.
Consider autonomous cars. My self driving car will stop short of the baby carriage, if it has time. What does my self driving car do if the choice is hit the baby carriage or hit the other automobile? Does it choose to save the baby, because it is unprotected? Does it choose to kill the baby because hitting the other car risks more deaths?
Computers are worse at exceptions than humans.
The criteria have to be "squishy". Not all contact marks are the same. They are bigger or smaller. They are in prime focal areas or not.
You would HATE a completely programmed grading standard because it would result, at times, in ugly coins getting high grades and beautiful coins getting low grades.
There is not the degree of inconsistency that you think. If you put a coin in front of a grader, 95% of them will agree to within 1 grade. But ownership changes it. You apply your own subjectivity to it and find it more or less beautiful than the assigned grade. THAT is never going to change.
I thought cancel culture was working on that.
Eye appeal is part of the grading because we made it part of the grading. But why does it have to be part of the grading? Is it not possible to devise grades independent of the subjective appeal aspect? In other words to have grades that do not take market and/or pricing into consideration? Of course it is possible but then people will have to determine pricing independently of grades.
Why would I hate that? Again, it all depends upon the criteria being judged for grading. As long as subjective elements such as eye appeal are demanded to be part of grading there will always be disputes on the grades. But if you eliminate those then you would probably arrive at repeatable parameters such as marks, reflectivity, topography (remaining design elements), etc. You'd have a repeatable grade. Then the subjective bits would be separated.
In other words, why must the subjective elements and pricing be factors in the grade? Pricing changes and what appeals changes over time so therefore grades change. And the fact that grades change, or professional opinions of grades change, seems to cause a lot of people to either make a lot of money or lose a lot of money.
Or look at it another way. Many complain about gradeflation or about the professional opinions being overly conservative. Isn't that exactly how the system is designed to be?
My thoughts are you can standardize grading but will never standardize human feelings. Quick example. I have people showing me what are great examples of X. I don’t see it. What is generally excepted as awesome is hideous in my opinion. There’s your rub. We all have opinions and you will never,ever standardize that. As collectors we collect what we like not what we’re told to like.
My 2-percent
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Ah yes, the never ending topic (well, one of them anyway). Yes, better systems can be devised. However, not everyone will be satisfied with the system. Eye appeal cannot... and should not... be part of a grade. Simply because 'beauty' or 'ugly' is a personal evaluation and preference. Eye appeal should be left to the buyer - and, to some extent, the seller (we must allow for sales hype
). I doubt we will see another system implemented in the next fifty years.... though possible. Cheers, RickO
Totally agree. My devil's advocate point in this thread is we have the grading system we have (flaws and all) because that's what we (as a community) really want even if we won't want to admit it. Bruce Tognazzini, a user experience expert, once said (to this effect) that people like complicated systems and standards because it creates/maintains a barrier between the knowledgeable and the lay person.
Personally, I don't like Market Grading. It is very biased depending on the graders tastes in coins. This isn't far from my opinion of the market grading football! I would be all in for a technical grade assigned and allow the desirability of the coin to be determined by the collector.
I have a great example myself. I had the most gorgeous Barber Half that was in an old ANACS 62 holder. I tried 3 times to get PCGS to cross the coin to a AU58+. No Go. So I finally cracked it out and it came back 63. The coin had blatantly obvious rub but the colors bumped it to a 63.
I'm old enough to remember when adjectives were used in grading. Unc, choice Unc, superb Unc., even slider Unc. I started to embrace the numerical system because I thought it added precision to grading. (Boy did I have a lot to learn back then.)
I saw a Morgan at a show the dealer had graded Choice Unc. I asked him what numerical grade he would give it. His reply was "I grade it" -- AND NAMED A PRICE. I agree with much of what's been said here. Grading will always have a certain
subjective nature. In fact, market grading is just an attempt to make grade an indicator of price.
Looking forward to computer umpires at home plate in baseball for consistent, repeatable calls at home plate-NOT! The human factor keeps life interesting, thank god
>
The idealized system is already here, it's just not being used for that purpose.
"With PCGS Gold Shield, each coin is imaged in high resolution, registered, and checked against PCGS’ vast proprietary imaging database."
The grade with Gold Shield, except for "true errors," could then be finalized and not fluctuate. True errors would be the label having the wrong year or mintmark.
Even after 35 years of third party grading, the desire is still to profit by finding an undergraded coin.
A laser scanner could map the entire surface of the coin within seconds and compare the results to an MS70 or whatever the pinnacle is for that coin. Damage is not subjective nor would be the programming. Damage, or lack thereof, could easily be measured and given a score. It would even weed out whispering VDBs and call out VAMs. Eye appeal, to include "cleaned", should go by the wayside. Buyers perogative already exists. As a newb, my beef to this point is (1) seeing pictures of coins with eye drawing damage that rated MS and my details graded coin with far less and (2) don't YOU try to make your coins appeal to the eye but hey, we can restore them for a fee. Touchless car wash? This past month, I've learned not only is their "cleaned", there's "polished"; like a shiny coin is a crime. I wanted to scream. The industry can do better.
USAF veteran 1984-2005
It sounds like you’re talking about being able to ensure that a given coin can be graded the same each time, if resubmitted in the future. Either way, even if so, that says nothing about how other examples in roughly the same condition, which have different flaws to weigh, should grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
>
Both points sound reasonable to me. In the case of the later point, we are relying on professional graders to make that determination for us.
The answer; $$$
Pcgs works for me
NGC & PCGS combined have graded over 100 million coins. Somebody will have to pay if those are to be regraded. Any volunteers? How many slabbed coins do you own?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
You can find a dozen threads on here explaining why this won't quite work the way you think.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
To answer the OP's questions, a standard is repeatable. That what makes it a standard. Application of the standard is another story. It's not repeatable because the marketplace has heterogeneous tastes and doesn't even want it to be repeatable.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
Great poll question.
I'll let you ask it.
One of my options would be would you upgrade a lower ranked nice looking coin with a higher ranked one with lousy eye appeal.
And you'll have people offering the more attractive (but lower graded) coin for more than the higher graded (but uglier) one. Want to guess how that'll go over?
I did not say I would prefer one over the other, just that it can be done, and how is your example any different from what we have now with badly marked up, cleaned, marginal coins getting high grades due to color or one grader's idea of eye appeal.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
From this website:
"In all cases, at minimum, 3-4 graders are assigned to every coin for grading and verification."
https://www.pcgs.com/pcgs-grading-process-video
Just sayin'.