Some philosophy on coin grades
stealer
Posts: 3,991 ✭✭✭✭
Sketching out a few thoughts from the other day.
I acknowledge that these are not all novel conceptions, but rather my attempt to synthesize what others have discussed into formal terms for discussion.
EDIT: a far more efficient way to communicate some ideas...
The idea that I am trying to hit upon is that we can think of each "grade" as being broken into two parts:
1. the objective quality (e.g. how much wear)
2. the subjective quality (e.g. hits, luster, eye appeal, strike)
Then following that, I simply choose to break it down to a scale from 0 to 10 because it maps well to the already existing MS60 to MS70 grades.
- MS tells me the objective quality -- the coin has no wear (again, with caveats).
- 60 to 70 tells me the subjective quality -- how many hits, hairlines, etc.
Thus I am proposing that we can re-map this into 60.00, 60.01, 60.02,...60.10 in lieu of 60, 61, 62,...,70.
Going back to circulated grades, it stands to reason that those coins, too, can be evaluated on those two criteria.
Hence 58.00, 58.01,...58.10.
Abstract
Circulated grades are fascinating for a number of reasons. Definitionally, they seem to embody more nuance than uncirculated grades. For those of you familiar with data science, you will be familiar with the concept that the "distance" metric for two features can be vastly different. In more common terminology, you cannot compare apples with oranges. As a continuation from this line of thought, I will argue below why the "distance" between a 55 and 58 is greater than 62 and 63 (and not just numerically).
My conclusions (please debate)
1. I think a more interesting (read: accurate) way to think of uncirculated grades is as belonging to a single grade category, let's call it "60".
2. A totally reasonable counterpoint is that we should not express the uncirculated grades and make them less differentiable, but then I contend that it'd be correct to (at least mentally) expand the range of circulated grades to match that of uncirculated coins.
3. Obviously this is unlikely to shift TPG grading (anytime soon), but a worthwhile topic to discuss.
Full statements
On MS grades:
1. Range from 60 to 70
2. Philosophically, they have the same amount of wear: definitionally, zero. For the sake of this discussion, we will ignore that there are caveats depending on series (e.g. bust coinage that have an acceptable amount of "friction" and can still be "uncirculated")
3. MS grades are separated by the number of hits, luster, eye appeal, that the coin has.
On circulated grades:
1. Range from 1 to 58
2. Philosophically, the amount of wear determines the grade of the coin. Of course, there are caveats where grading services will net grade a coin based on a light wipe, or an excessive number of hits, but if we are talking purely from a pedagogical stance, a 50 should have more wear than a 53, should have more wear than a 55, and so on.
3. Within a single circulated grade there can be said to be a range of "grades", where they are separated by number of hits, luster (when applicable), eye appeal, that the coin has.
For example, let's consider the grade AU58.
I stipulate that there is a 58.0, 58.01, 58.02,...,58.10, which maps into the same notions as expressed in the 60-70 range.
Thus it is theoretically possible to find a "perfect" 58.10 coin -- functionally, a 70 with the slightest bit of wear.
This notion is well-encapsulated in the colloquial discussions surrounding coins described as "perfect XF45", albeit that phrase does not well concretize the whole idea as I am trying to express above.
In other words, one can think of all uncirculated coins as belonging to a singular grade, call it MS60, and all other grades in the uncirculated range that currently exists would simply be mapped as above.
60.0, 60.01, 60.02,...,60.10.
Another aspect to consider is with respect to CAC stickers. I don't know the full detail of their process, but the goal is to sticker coins in the "A" grade range. Let's say that constitutes the top 25% of coins in a particular grade range.
Then given that definition, a CAC sticker on an AU58 should theoretically constitute a 58.075 or better.
Versus a CAC sticker on a 63, as mapped to my definition above, would constitute a 60.0375 to 60.04. (one could argue this range actually goes up to 60.0474 seeing as a "gold CAC" would be a coin that is next grade up + in top 25%, but that is too much nuance for this first pass).
As a closing statement, I am simply arguing that there exists
1. A differentiation of a certain grade: MS60
2. Based on certain criteria: (hits, luster, eye appeal)
That does not (explicitly) exist for circulated grades, yet it could and perhaps should
Anyway, this is already far too long of a post, and while I have more thoughts on this topic I will yield the floor for others to discuss.
If you read up until this point, I applaud you.
Comments
Very good post, stealer......VERY GOOD!......Thanks!
My brain hurts
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Very interesting but I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying.
You were talking about AU58 and then brought up 58.01, 58.02, and then 58.10. Did you mean to say 58.10, 58.20? You also made the same point with MS60. Could you kindly elaborate.
This hobby (and grading in particular) is complicated enough already. Further fractionalization of the grading scale is unlikely to do 99% of collectors any service.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
A few observations…
I’d add “strike” to the below.
Your post: “3. MS grades are separated by the number of hits, luster, eye appeal, that the coin has.”
What’s the point of your incredibly precise differentiation of numerical grades below, when there’s no practical way to assess the differences?
Your post: “I stipulate that there is a 58.0, 58.01, 58.02,...,58.10, which maps into the same notions as expressed in the 60-70 range”.
You omitted coins in the “B” grade range below. CAC seeks to sticker them, as well. Additionally, bringing CAC into such a discussion seems unnecessary and makes an an already overly complicated philosophy even more so.
Your post: “Another aspect to consider is with respect to CAC stickers. I don't know the full detail of their process, but the goal is to sticker coins in the "A" grade range.”
Edited to add: I apologize if I sound harsh or overly particular. The things I mentioned were ones that just crossed my mind as I was reading. And I realize it’s far easier to suggest edits or critique than it is to write something in the first place.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think of Unc and Circ as 2 categories of coins. Rubbed and unrubbed.
This post also makes think of what might be the inverse - all (properly created?) coins start off as 70s and drop from there. The first hit, clink, exposure to air brings it down until it’s preserved by our best attempts to collect and stop the process.
Every coin has been dropped to where it sits today and can never be better. We might be able to “conserve” it and expose more positive attributes, but it was already like that, just under a removable cover.
So yeah, whether we’re talking about PQ or not, CAC or not, or whatever other attribute, it’s just an issue of how far down the line the elevator has gone, pre or post-rub. And I think it’s an elevator, not a ladder.
Circulated or uncirculated, an issue that cannot be resolved using a single number is the fact that the condition of a coin is expressed with multiple basis functions, while the grade is an attempt to project this multidimensional condition onto a 1-dimensional continuum that correlates strongly with the coin's value.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Applause accepted.
Regardless, I believe your first post is akin to philosophy and has little to do with everyday reality.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I am sorry but I see way to many coins of all types in holders with friction up and including ms66!
This has been drifting this way for years. I beieve this has come from the incessant parsing of friction causes.
Subjectivity abounds along with bias towards minimizing the friction causes to fool oneself that the coin is a higher grade
And the friction was from an acceptable cause ( which has been an ever growing list of acceptability) . This tends to increase the higher graded slab coins available on the market. In the preslab days these would be called sliders now they are acceptable as MS coins. I find the inconsistency here frustrating. Differenses of opinions abound on this subject. The TPG's have become inconsistent I condend also. Articles in Numismatic News basically have said the same thing.
I lost focus no really my glasses fall off midway. But that was long but a good read. 👍
Hoard the keys.
Here are 7 Lincoln cents all graded MS66. You could argue why each one fell short of MS67 or what carried them to 66.
I'll post them in order lowest to highest based on Trueview and what I see which, could also be argued.
Most Peace dollars in MS holders in the MS63-65 range have some high-point friction or rub. It's especially easy to see on the feather tips with a loupe. Yes, I'm aware that many aren't fully struck up. Even so, it's still there. The TPGs all basically ignore it, even CAC. It is what it is.
Agree.
Nice effort to split hairs and try and explain grade theory but mostly IMO that is an answer to a question nobody is asking presently.
Value and perceived value as well as trends / changes in importance of specific criteria will drive grading revisions down the road.
Sounds similar to what David Hall presented years ago when pcgs implemented the “+” grades on the labels, which is a 700 point grading system. Coin has to be above the threshold to garner a + grade (so 668 would make it a ms66+ on the label, and 661 would be a ms66 on the label). I don’t know if pcgs still grades like this or not?
The thing I wish happened was that pcgs would provide access to the 700 point grades the graders came up with for the coins I submit, so I could get an idea of where they thought they fell in the spectrum of that grade. I always felt this would improve my grading skills to be more nitpicking for every grade.
Do you happen to have the original link/source to that statement? Curious to see how it was described by David Hall. In general it sounds like an awful system to implement, from a business perspective. I’d be surprised if PCGS graders were required to log every grade internally on a 700 point scale. There’s no clear revenue benefit to doing that, and no benefit or value delivered to the collector either.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I don't see the introduction of plus grades as anything remotely similar to a 700 point grading system.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All of this gets much simpler when you understand that coins don’t actually have grades. It’s (mostly) subjective and they’re just opinions, subject to the whims of individuals and the wanderings of what is fashionable over time.
As mentioned above... Currently, grades are subjective opinions. Granted, there is training and certainly some consistency in trained opinions. However, getting more finite in defining grades, would require standards - real, measurable, repeatable standards. I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future... meaning the lifetimes of many of us here. It could be done, especially with the advances in AI. It would still be a major programming task. Then, when achieved, the break into the market would have to be managed. That would be another task of magnitude. Cheers, RickO
Young Numismatist
The more complicated and the less history-contexed the hobby becomes the less interesting it is to me.
What would Aristotle or Plato say about nuanced numismatics? What would the existentialists say, Kierkegaard or Nietzsche (not to be confused with Ray Neitzke)? How about Sartre and Camus?
Good point.
To be clear, I am not trying to make a claim that this is at all functional / actionable, but rather to draw attention to the fact that circulated and uncirculated coins are graded via different metrics, and that this is not an inherent feature of coins, but rather a system that we (and by we I mean Sheldon) decided on.
This is well motivated in the general notion that circulated coins are graded as a science, and uncirculated as an art (or so I have heard it explained to me in the past). Of course, nobody would stand by this statement as an absolute.
In other words, I am simply making the claim that both circulated coins can be graded as both "science" (wear, circulation) and "art" (hits, luster, eye appeal, strike).
Agreed, I debated omitting it but figured it'd add an additional bit of conversation to be had. However, in retrospect, I think it would've been wise to leave it for another time.
No, I totally appreciate the feedback! That was the purpose of the post
Mostly addressed above with response to MFeld -- let me know if that doesn't clear it up entirely. Although in writing this response I realize that I had a typo, and it should start with XX.00, not XX.01.
With respect to 58.00, 58.01,58.02... vs 58.00, 58.10, 58.20,... -- functionally there is no difference EXCEPT that I would like to go from 0 to 10, and with the latter system, I cannot go to 10 without incrementing 58, which would be confusing.
The idea that I am trying to hit upon is that we can think of each "grade" as being broken into two parts:
1. the objective quality (e.g. how much wear)
2. the subjective quality (e.g. hits, luster, eye appeal, strike)
Then following that, I simply choose to break it down to a scale from 0 to 10 because it maps well to the already existing MS60 to MS70 grades.
Going back to the original statement, what I was trying to communicate is that:
1. MS tells me the objective quality -- the coin has no wear (again, with caveats).
2. 60 to 70 tells me the subjective quality -- how many hits, hairlines, etc.
Thus I am proposing that we can re-map this into 60.00, 60.01, 60.02,...60.10 in lieu of 60, 61, 62,...,70.
Going back to circulated grades, it stands to reason that those coins, too, can be evaluated on those two criteria.
Hence 58.00, 58.01,...58.10.
Let me know if that clarifies it well.
As in my response to MFeld -- my goal is not to propose any real world changes, but rather to create a framework to explicitly state the high level conecpts by which we all evaluate the quality of coins.
Could this lead to something concrete in the future? Potentially. Do I expect it to? Not necessarily
You get applause nonetheless @TomB
I agree with this entirely.
PCGS luncheon in January of the year pcgs implemented + grades. I don’t remember the year.
It sounds like you’re just taking the concept of A , B and C coins and using a 10-point scale within each grade instead. I would wager that very, very few people in this hobby consider a grade at that level of granularity. CAC doesn’t even consider + grades, for example.
If we want to drive ourselves insane, let’s apply the A/B/C concept within the A/B/C concept. That creates 9 possibilities within a given grade: 58AA (the best possible 58), 58AB, 58AC, 58BA, etc. See how ridiculous this is getting?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
@stealer
I have tried to read through the thread but probably missed much. I will try to be brief with answer but have a few thoughts to throw out so it won't be brief.
Two things I want to throw out are grade scale was develop over time and I believe mostly due to value.
I will not get these grades jumps correct but should be representative to get point across. Also I will mention dollars but might be just as applicable to other series.
First Unc. - started with MS60 and MS65 (maybe 67 and I am not typing MS after this) but many 60 dollars were near as nice as 65 so they sold for more. Therefore a 63 grade came to life to try and even out the value within a grade. Checking the revised 2nd edition of ANA grading standards (1984, 1981, 1977) that is what it shows 60, 63, 65, 67, 70.
However, as time advanced the trend continued. That is a nice near 65 but called/graded 63 was worth more and sold for more than a average or low end 63. So more grades came to life to try and even out the value within a grade. The 4th edition of ANA grading standards (1987, 1991) has the detail information for the same grades 60, 63, 65, 67, 70 but now there is a smaller table for all grades 60 through 70 with grade information.
So the point here is that I believe value primarily drove the continued smaller division in the the grade jumps.
Similarly in 2010 when pcgs and ngc announced the plus (+) grade the announcement had value noted.
PCGS founder David Hall stated, "The reality of the market place is that coins considered high end for the grade are recognized by sophisticated dealers and collectors and such coins are worth a premium in the marketplace. The term "plus" has been part of the everyday trading and grading lingo for years.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
For the Circlulated grades there has been / was a similar development of the refinement of the grading scale through time so that now there is 58, 55, 53, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30,25, 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 (with some plus grades on 40 and up). I am not going to attempt to track down what grades there were and when. I do believe the grade refinement was probably mostly due to value also but again I didn't try to track it. However, if coins, in general, were of the same value for a grade of VF and XF, then why refine the grade more? It was again probably value that drove 20, 25, 30, 35 as someone with a VF that was nearly as nice as a XF wanted more for it.
So at this point I believe value has mainly driven the grades but there are certainly other factors.
Now the proposal or whatever one wants to call it, is to keep the Unc / MS grade scale about the same except call it 60.00, 60.01 through 60.10 or 11 grades same as 60 through 70. For the circulated grades the proposal is not to keep it the same but to subdivide each grade from one (or two if it has a plus) grade to 11 with 55.00, 55.01 through 55.10.
That is some change especially since the market has already divided the grades up through time. So is there any value in these, what I would call extreme subdivisions? That is would someone pay more for a 55.02 versus a 55.03?
Well that is it, a view based on value.
I just could not keep it short. Sorry for the long post.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023