Greysheet's Feigenbaum interview with Andy Salzberg and why NGCX

Desert Moon

A another interesting and thought provoking podcast from JF. Salzberg reveals what the thinking was over NGCX.

Edited to add: Love NGC's innovation.

Best, SH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY2pp8-XVlg

Vasanti

The NGCX Vaultbox concept is going to make them a ton of money.

Desert Moon

JF quote from the video

"We are a base 10 world, and here we are in numismatics on a base 70 world, it makes no sense"

Love it!

291fifth

Just think of how much money it is going to cost collectors and dealers if the "10" based scale catches on.

jmlanzaf

@291fifth said:
Just think of how much money it is going to cost collectors and dealers if the "10" based scale catches on.

Or how much money it will make then if it broadens the collector base. Mr. Half Empty.

Did the advent of TPGs cost collectors money or make them money?

jmlanzaf

Loved it when they announced it. Love it even more now.

291fifth

@jmlanzaf said:

@291fifth said:
Just think of how much money it is going to cost collectors and dealers if the "10" based scale catches on.

Or how much money it will make then if it broadens the collector base. Mr. Half Empty.

Did the advent of TPGs cost collectors money or make them money?

It made someone money didn't it?

Project Numismatics

@jmlanzaf said:
Loved it when they announced it. Love it even more now.

Awesome, look forward to seeing a picture of your extensive modern collection in new holders under the new grading system.

messydesk

@spacehayduke said:
JF quote from the video

"We are a base 10 world 24/7/365, and here we are in numismatics on a base 70 world, it makes no sense"

Love it!

Quote altered for irony.

fastfreddie

Next will be converting 10 point to a 100 point scale IMO.

MasonG

@291fifth said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@291fifth said:
Just think of how much money it is going to cost collectors and dealers if the "10" based scale catches on.

Or how much money it will make then if it broadens the collector base. Mr. Half Empty.

Did the advent of TPGs cost collectors money or make them money?

It made someone money didn't it?

Making money is why people start businesses. People offering products/services that other people willingly pay for- is that a bad thing?

jmlanzaf

@J2035 said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Loved it when they announced it. Love it even more now.

Awesome, look forward to seeing a picture of your extensive modern collection in new holders under the new grading system.

Watch my ebay account. I will definitely stock them as well as apply for submission privileges as soon as it is possible.

I will also gladly buy my favorite NCLT coins in NGCX holders.

jmlanzaf

@fastfreddie said:
Next will be converting 10 point to a 100 point scale IMO.

Since they use decimals, it already is.

Desert Moon

@messydesk said:
"We are a base 10 world 24/7/365, and here we are in numismatics on a base 70 world, it makes no sense" >

Quote altered for irony.

LOL not really relevant for the discussion, time and a base 10 numeric system are 2 different things, surely you know that?

messydesk

@spacehayduke said:

@messydesk said:
"We are a base 10 world 24/7/365, and here we are in numismatics on a base 70 world, it makes no sense" >

Quote altered for irony.

LOL not really relevant for the discussion, time and a base 10 numeric system are 2 different things, surely you know that?

Surely you know that my motivation was based in humor and that I'm not going to do a 180 with respect to my post.

Desert Moon

@messydesk said:

@spacehayduke said:

@messydesk said:
"We are a base 10 world 24/7/365, and here we are in numismatics on a base 70 world, it makes no sense" >

Quote altered for irony.

LOL not really relevant for the discussion, time and a base 10 numeric system are 2 different things, surely you know that?

Surely you know that my motivation was based in humor and that I'm not going to do a 180 with respect to my post.

Given the vitriol of any discussion here on NGC with typically many naysayers against that TPG (read previous threads for example), well no I don't understand that as humor in all cases - could as easily be sarcasm of the negative kind........ If it was true humor, what was the point rather than to raise ridicule on innovation? Just sayin'

MWallace

I like tradition. Keep the 70 scale.

Zoins

@291fifth said:
Just think of how much money it is going to cost collectors and dealers if the "10" based scale catches on.

If it catches on and brings in more collectors, it's quite possible collectors will do well with more demand.

If it doesn't catch on, no worries.

Coin Finder

Great video. Simplifying the modern coin market grading system will attract more fist time buyers of modern coins into the market. What's 70 mean? I get that a lot.. A 10 is a 10. A 9 is almost 10 etc.. Additionally it may attract people into the coin market period.. I'm always skeptical about this stuff so we shall see if it takes hold..

MidLifeCrisis

I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other...but I do have some thoughts...

I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?

I think the 10 scale might be confusing to some who may intuitively think that number 1 is best and 10 is worst.

If it catches on for moderns, it will be interesting to see how it is applied to classics.

It's also interesting how NGCX defines modern coins, according to their FAQ:
Which coins qualify for NGCX certification?
Modern coins, minted from 1982 to present, qualify for NGCX certification.

Is 1982 the industry-wide accepted date for the beginning of modern coins? How does PCGS define modern coins?

fathom

"The worm must taste good to the fish, not the fisherman."

Dave99B

70 is an odd number. I expect 1-100 will be next.

Dave

TomB

@Dave99B said:
70 is an odd number. I expect 1-100 will be next.

Dave

Humor Alert! Humor Alert! Humor Alert!

No, 70 is an even number.

lilolme

I thought the more interesting part of the video was from about 31:00 to 35:00. The brief discussion about looking into the use of technology / AI.

I have thought that using AI to determine or assist in determining varieties, counterfeits and similar could be done and possibly extremely well. For these type of things the AI would be looking for what I will call markers (I think most know what I mean).

So having a database with the Overton's or VAM's or other and then 'scanning' the coin and comparing markers to determine a variety would appear doable. A finalizer could then review the answer. Seems as if this could help (maybe a lot) in variety attribution.

A similar thing could be applied to counterfeits but not as all inclusive since counterfeit do vary. But looking for known counterfeit markers (burfle23 has posted them multiple times) and/or questionable aspects (inconsistent surface texture or similar), inconsistent mint marks, and other potential counterfeit detection aspects of the coin could help the grading team. This one should require the same inspection by the grader but just using the AI to help.

I think it would be interesting to see if something like this could be developed to where it was an online tool to help the collector / dealer.

lilolme

@MidLifeCrisis said:
I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other...but I do have some thoughts...

I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?

I was thinking something similar.

I think I understand the idea that people recognize 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing. Perhaps the 10 will get more people involved and that looks like a goal and a good one. So much talk about people not understanding 70 and on and on.

However, on the other side these same people are going to have to understand a 9 or 9.0. That is, to most people that get the 10 thing a 9 (9.0) is really good. Not going to turn down a 9 are we. If I am out walking and a 9 goes by the eyes might wonder and perhaps some head turning.

Now I have to learn that a 9 (9.0) in the coin world is somewhat the bottom end. How can people be expected to comprehend this. Sarcasm.

In some of the modern coin world even a 9.5 or Nine and a half is not so good or no premium. That is a Nine and a half are you kidding. (more sarcasm)

Anyhow agree with MLC on the metal challenged or not so.

jmlanzaf

@lilolme said:

@MidLifeCrisis said:
I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other...but I do have some thoughts...

I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?

I was thinking something similar.

I think I understand the idea that people recognize 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing. Perhaps the 10 will get more people involved and that looks like a goal and a good one. So much talk about people not understanding 70 and on and on.

However, on the other side these same people are going to have to understand a 9 or 9.0. That is, to most people that get the 10 thing a 9 (9.0) is really good. Not going to turn down a 9 are we. If I am out walking and a 9 goes by the eyes might wonder and perhaps some head turning.

Now I have to learn that a 9 (9.0) in the coin world is somewhat the bottom end. How can people be expected to comprehend this. Sarcasm.

In some of the modern coin world even a 9.5 or Nine and a half is not so good or no premium. That is a Nine and a half are you kidding. (more sarcasm)

Anyhow agree with MLC on the metal challenged or not so.

You're viewing coins in isolation. Sure you could teach a coin collector the Sheldon scale. That isn't the point. Comic books, wine, toys, video cassettes, stamps, sports cards, books et al are all on 10 or 100 point scales. So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins
They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

PeakRarities

I hope that this idea, if nothing else, does in fact bring some new collectors into the hobby. However, I’m doubtful how effective it will be as a whole. Someone else made a good analogy in one of the other threads, saying how not learning the 70 point scale because it’s “confusing” would be like refusing to play tennis or football because they don’t want to learn the scoring system of the game.

I understand the reasoning behind it, and I’m not against change or progress, but personally I collect coins because I love them and the history attached to them. The scoring system doesn’t matter to me, and I would collect them no matter what type of numerical system they are graded upon. To that effect, I do not collect stamps, baseball cards, or comic books, and I most likely never will. It doesn’t matter if they converted to the Sheldon scale, I still would not collect those things as they don’t just don’t appeal to me at this time in my life.

To me this scale would have been useful for classic coins decades ago, before everyone was used to the Sheldon scale, but it’s a little late now. I could see NGCX being accepted for the modern stuff that’s all gonna be graded between 9.8-10.0, and certainly hope that it makes it easier for a some collectors of the other items to purchase their first coin, but I don’t know how it’s ever going catch on beyond that. Time will tell I guess.

ricko

Like the innovation of TPG's and CAC, this is another step in the coin collecting world. There was resistance at each step... then grudging acceptance, then it became de rigueur.... This will be fun to watch. Cheers, RickO

Zoins

@lilolme said:
I thought the more interesting part of the video was from about 31:00 to 35:00.

At first, I was like, oh no, not a 31 to 35 scale!

jmlanzaf

@DeplorableDan said:
I hope that this idea, if nothing else, does in fact bring some new collectors into the hobby. However, I’m doubtful how effective it will be as a whole. Someone else made a good analogy in one of the other threads, saying how not learning the 70 point scale because it’s “confusing” would be like refusing to play tennis or football because they don’t want to learn the scoring system of the game.

I understand the reasoning behind it, and I’m not against change or progress, but personally I collect coins because I love them and the history attached to them. The scoring system doesn’t matter to me, and I would collect them no matter what type of numerical system they are graded upon. To that effect, I do not collect stamps, baseball cards, or comic books, and I most likely never will. It doesn’t matter if they converted to the Sheldon scale, I still would not collect those things as they don’t just don’t appeal to me at this time in my life.

To me this scale would have been useful for classic coins decades ago, before everyone was used to the Sheldon scale, but it’s a little late now. I could see NGCX being accepted for the modern stuff that’s all gonna be graded between 9.8-10.0, and certainly hope that it makes it easier for a some collectors of the other items to purchase their first coin, but I don’t know how it’s ever going catch on beyond that. Time will tell I guess.

Think NCLT. You're a Disney collector. You see a Niue Minnie Mouse coin that's a 9.8. That resonates. A 69 sounds defective. You collect comic books, you want a Canada superman coin.

You're a rich guy who dabbles in collectibles as trophies. Would you be more prone to display a 10.0 gold coin or a 70 that you have to explain is really a good grade?

It's all marketing. But marketing is how you increase your base.

Have you ever seen those mass marketed dollars in "gem uncirculated" slabs? The no grade slabs are cheaper, but I would bet that if you talk to the marketing companies they'll tell you that "gem uncirculated" sells better than "66" because it resonates with non-collectors.

Zoins

@MidLifeCrisis said:
It's also interesting how NGCX defines modern coins, according to their FAQ:
Which coins qualify for NGCX certification?
Modern coins, minted from 1982 to present, qualify for NGCX certification.

Is 1982 the industry-wide accepted date for the beginning of modern coins? How does PCGS define modern coins?

Not sure about PCGS, but that seems to be inline with what CAC uses. CAC says they don't grade moderns and grade Ikes which end in 1978.

Project Numismatics

I just finished watching the interview - thank you for the link.

I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of potential collectors waiting in the wings that will engage with the hobby because of a revised numerical grading system. In the video there is an admission that there is insufficient data to support the change and it’s largely based on gut feel.

Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

I see potential downside in exclusivity for the preselected submitters (don’t we already have that with special labels!), confusion in the market between two grading systems for the same class of coins, and eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

jmlanzaf

@J2035 said:
I just finished watching the interview - thank you for the link.

I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of potential collectors waiting in the wings that will engage with the hobby because of a revised numerical grading system. In the video there is an admission that there is insufficient data to support the change and it’s largely based on gut feel.

Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

I see potential downside in exclusivity for the preselected submitters (don’t we already have that with special labels!), confusion in the market between two grading systems for the same class of coins, and eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

It's worth reminding people of the huge number of people who didn't think TPG's added any value. And we still have people vehemently arguing that CAC adds no value.

Project Numismatics

@jmlanzaf said:

@J2035 said:
I just finished watching the interview - thank you for the link.

I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of potential collectors waiting in the wings that will engage with the hobby because of a revised numerical grading system. In the video there is an admission that there is insufficient data to support the change and it’s largely based on gut feel.

Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

I see potential downside in exclusivity for the preselected submitters (don’t we already have that with special labels!), confusion in the market between two grading systems for the same class of coins, and eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

It's worth reminding people of the huge number of people who didn't think TPG's added any value. And we still have people vehemently arguing that CAC adds no value.

TPGs and CAC have demonstrably improved liquidity and trust in the market.

You are comparing apples and oranges when comparing the advent of TPGs to a change in the grading system.

Broadstruck

Gosh what a snooze fest as this has to be the most boring coin interview video I've ever seen!

savitale

I’m ambivalent about the new scale since I do not collect moderns. I assume those more attuned to that market (e.g. NGC) know those customers much better than I. The Sheldon scale was not developed with modern coins in mind. So if they are better served by a 10.0 scale, so be it.

Zoins

@jmlanzaf said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I hope that this idea, if nothing else, does in fact bring some new collectors into the hobby. However, I’m doubtful how effective it will be as a whole. Someone else made a good analogy in one of the other threads, saying how not learning the 70 point scale because it’s “confusing” would be like refusing to play tennis or football because they don’t want to learn the scoring system of the game.

I understand the reasoning behind it, and I’m not against change or progress, but personally I collect coins because I love them and the history attached to them. The scoring system doesn’t matter to me, and I would collect them no matter what type of numerical system they are graded upon. To that effect, I do not collect stamps, baseball cards, or comic books, and I most likely never will. It doesn’t matter if they converted to the Sheldon scale, I still would not collect those things as they don’t just don’t appeal to me at this time in my life.

To me this scale would have been useful for classic coins decades ago, before everyone was used to the Sheldon scale, but it’s a little late now. I could see NGCX being accepted for the modern stuff that’s all gonna be graded between 9.8-10.0, and certainly hope that it makes it easier for a some collectors of the other items to purchase their first coin, but I don’t know how it’s ever going catch on beyond that. Time will tell I guess.

Think NCLT. You're a Disney collector. You see a Niue Minnie Mouse coin that's a 9.8. That resonates. A 69 sounds defective. You collect comic books, you want a Canada superman coin.

Agree, but it doesn't even have to be coins. Silver rounds have collectors as well.

lilolme

@jmlanzaf said:

@lilolme said:

@MidLifeCrisis said:
I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other...but I do have some thoughts...

I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?

I was thinking something similar.

I think I understand the idea that people recognize 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing. Perhaps the 10 will get more people involved and that looks like a goal and a good one. So much talk about people not understanding 70 and on and on.

However, on the other side these same people are going to have to understand a 9 or 9.0. That is, to most people that get the 10 thing a 9 (9.0) is really good. Not going to turn down a 9 are we. If I am out walking and a 9 goes by the eyes might wonder and perhaps some head turning.

Now I have to learn that a 9 (9.0) in the coin world is somewhat the bottom end. How can people be expected to comprehend this. Sarcasm.

In some of the modern coin world even a 9.5 or Nine and a half is not so good or no premium. That is a Nine and a half are you kidding. (more sarcasm)

Anyhow agree with MLC on the metal challenged or not so.

You're viewing coins in isolation. Sure you could teach a coin collector the Sheldon scale. That isn't the point. Comic books, wine, toys, video cassettes, stamps, sports cards, books et al are all on 10 or 100 point scales. So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins
They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

Incorrect. You should re-read my post.

The very first part I state that 'I think I understand that people recognize the 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing.'

So this basically covers your response to me about:
"Comic books, wine, toys, video cassettes, stamps, sports cards, books et al are all on 10 or 100 point scales. So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins "

So essentially that is the first thing I noted with different words in my post.

As far as your response of:

So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins

They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

What I was referencing with some humor is that the Coin 10 point scale is not like most other 10 point scales. So a person familiar with most other 10 point scales won't understand the Coin 10 point scale (and moderns in particular). As I noted a 9.0 or 9.5 in most 10 point scales is very or extremely good. But a 9.0 in the coin scale and especially for moderns is the bottom end. Not worth grading unless it is some special variety or something (and even 9.5 not so good for moderns).

But my post on this stuff was referencing MLC post about others thinking people are mentally challenged (paraphrased). I then agreed with him that they are not. That is believing that they can figure this out.

Finally all of this means I was Not:
"You're viewing coins in isolation."

I was really looking at coins in relation to other things or 10 scale.

PeakRarities

@jmlanzaf said:
>
Think NCLT. You're a Disney collector. You see a Niue Minnie Mouse coin that's a 9.8. That resonates. A 69 sounds defective. You collect comic books, you want a Canada superman coin.

You're a rich guy who dabbles in collectibles as trophies. Would you be more prone to display a 10.0 gold coin or a 70 that you have to explain is really a good grade?

It's all marketing. But marketing is how you increase your base.

Have you ever seen those mass marketed dollars in "gem uncirculated" slabs? The no grade slabs are cheaper, but I would bet that if you talk to the marketing companies they'll tell you that "gem uncirculated" sells better than "66" because it resonates with non-collectors.

This is a valid point, and I hope it works out to aid the transition of some future coin collectors, we definitely want to stay mindful of the future collector base and the factors that influence it. I think part of the initial pushback NGCX received was just due to the timing of it all. In the wake of the CACG announcement, my first thought when hearing about this was “gimmicky”, but when I thought about it some more I can understand the rationale. If the timing had been different I might not have initially recoiled from the idea.

Zoins

@lilolme said:

@jmlanzaf said:
They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

What I was referencing with some humor is that the Coin 10 point scale is not like most other 10 point scales. So a person familiar with most other 10 point scales won't understand the Coin 10 point scale (and moderns in particular). As I noted a 9.0 or 9.5 in most 10 point scales is very or extremely good. But a 9.0 in the coin scale and especially for moderns is the bottom end. Not worth grading unless it is some special variety or something (and even 9.5 not so good for moderns).

I actually think that applies to most "post-collector" items. Think about sports cards and comic books. It's really the ones before they became collectors items and saved where lower conditions are valuable. Once things are recognized as a collectors item, many people will save later versions in pristine condition.

Chevyrose

The Sheldon scale has worked for the last 73 years

May further add to confusion for new collectors

Seems like a gimmick

lilolme

@Zoins said:

@lilolme said:

@jmlanzaf said:
They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

What I was referencing with some humor is that the Coin 10 point scale is not like most other 10 point scales. So a person familiar with most other 10 point scales won't understand the Coin 10 point scale (and moderns in particular). As I noted a 9.0 or 9.5 in most 10 point scales is very or extremely good. But a 9.0 in the coin scale and especially for moderns is the bottom end. Not worth grading unless it is some special variety or something (and even 9.5 not so good for moderns).

I actually think that applies to most "post-collector" items. Think about sports cards and comic books. It's really the ones before they became collectors items and saved where lower conditions are valuable. Once things are recognized as a collectors item, many people will save later versions in pristine condition.

I understand that but it was not my point. I was noting that the Coin 10 has a shift in the grading above or below 9. The Coin 10 goes from Unc/Ms to Circ. grades. The 9.0 can be a really beat up coin. Other collectibles do not do this. Below is a screen shot of the ngc grade scale. The condition goes down with the number.

But all of this is still not the point of my original post. I will try to clarify once more.

I quoted MLC post of:

"I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?"

So in response to this post about teaching the 70 scale and being mentally challenged I responded with some sarcasm (and labeled it as so and with smiley faces) that if they can't understand the 70 scale how could we expect them to understand the Coin 10 point scale when it is somewhat different than the normal 10 point scale. Again this was being sarcastic and labeled as so.

I then concluded that I agreed with MLC that they are Not mentally challenged and could/would figure it out (both the 70 and the Coin 10).

Coin Finder

Trying to define what year "modern coins" start will be more difficult for numismatists to agree on then the new grading system!

My mentor was born in 1926, he passed this year, but modern coins for him are/were anything after WW2!!

I think of modern coins as anything after 1964.

But for newbies 1982 is as good as any I guess, its a date the US mint did a commemorative for the first time in a long time, the Washington 50 cent coin in 90 percent silver.. 1976 was kind of a one off year with the bicentennial coins.

MasonG

@J2035 said:
Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

It's voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

@J2035 said:
I see ... eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

Who are you thinking it is that would be pressuring you?

Dave99B

@TomB said:

@Dave99B said:
70 is an odd number. I expect 1-100 will be next.

Dave

Humor Alert! Humor Alert! Humor Alert!

No, 70 is an even number.

LMAO,
Dave

Cladiator

The interview left a bad taste in my mouth.

Project Numismatics

@MasonG said:

@J2035 said:
Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

It's voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

@J2035 said:
I see ... eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

Who are you thinking it is that would be pressuring you?

In your first point, you are responding to an argument I never made. Of course anyone is free to participate or not participate and spend their dollars as they see fit. Companies are free to test any product or innovation they wish. This is how products improve. Doesn’t mean I have to like every new product or innovation.

Second, if there is pressure to reslab, then the concept must have caught on. If it does catch on, that does not mean it comes without cost. My point is simple - the costs outweigh the benefits for collectors. My PR70 moderns have liquidity now, why should I want to pay more money to maintain that liquidity?

I will concede that if this change brings in a large number of new collectors that would not have otherwise collected and that provides market price, then potentially it could be a benefit for collectors despite the costs.

jmlanzaf

@J2035 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@J2035 said:
I just finished watching the interview - thank you for the link.

I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of potential collectors waiting in the wings that will engage with the hobby because of a revised numerical grading system. In the video there is an admission that there is insufficient data to support the change and it’s largely based on gut feel.

Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

I see potential downside in exclusivity for the preselected submitters (don’t we already have that with special labels!), confusion in the market between two grading systems for the same class of coins, and eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

It's worth reminding people of the huge number of people who didn't think TPG's added any value. And we still have people vehemently arguing that CAC adds no value.

TPGs and CAC have demonstrably improved liquidity and trust in the market.

You are comparing apples and oranges when comparing the advent of TPGs to a change in the grading system.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm comparing collector reaction to the two...which is/was the same. People HATED the "plastic coffins" and considered it a useless gimmick.

jmlanzaf

@lilolme said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@lilolme said:

@MidLifeCrisis said:
I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other...but I do have some thoughts...

I wonder why people think it's hard to teach new collectors about the 70 scale. Seemed pretty easy when I learned it. Do people really think that YNs and other new collectors are that mentally challenged?

I was thinking something similar.

I think I understand the idea that people recognize 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing. Perhaps the 10 will get more people involved and that looks like a goal and a good one. So much talk about people not understanding 70 and on and on.

However, on the other side these same people are going to have to understand a 9 or 9.0. That is, to most people that get the 10 thing a 9 (9.0) is really good. Not going to turn down a 9 are we. If I am out walking and a 9 goes by the eyes might wonder and perhaps some head turning.

Now I have to learn that a 9 (9.0) in the coin world is somewhat the bottom end. How can people be expected to comprehend this. Sarcasm.

In some of the modern coin world even a 9.5 or Nine and a half is not so good or no premium. That is a Nine and a half are you kidding. (more sarcasm)

Anyhow agree with MLC on the metal challenged or not so.

You're viewing coins in isolation. Sure you could teach a coin collector the Sheldon scale. That isn't the point. Comic books, wine, toys, video cassettes, stamps, sports cards, books et al are all on 10 or 100 point scales. So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins
They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

Incorrect. You should re-read my post.

The very first part I state that 'I think I understand that people recognize the 10 and that 70 is a reaction of what is this 70 thing.'

So this basically covers your response to me about:
"Comic books, wine, toys, video cassettes, stamps, sports cards, books et al are all on 10 or 100 point scales. So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins "

So essentially that is the first thing I noted with different words in my post.

As far as your response of:

So collectors already know and understand it. It makes it easier to convert them to coins

They don't have to want to be "numismatists".

What I was referencing with some humor is that the Coin 10 point scale is not like most other 10 point scales. So a person familiar with most other 10 point scales won't understand the Coin 10 point scale (and moderns in particular). As I noted a 9.0 or 9.5 in most 10 point scales is very or extremely good. But a 9.0 in the coin scale and especially for moderns is the bottom end. Not worth grading unless it is some special variety or something (and even 9.5 not so good for moderns).

But my post on this stuff was referencing MLC post about others thinking people are mentally challenged (paraphrased). I then agreed with him that they are not. That is believing that they can figure this out.

Finally all of this means I was Not:
"You're viewing coins in isolation."

I was really looking at coins in relation to other things or 10 scale.

I was actually trying to respond to both you and MidLifeCrisis simultaneously. He's the one who said that it was easy to teach people the Sheldon scale.

MasonG

@J2035 said:
My point is simple - the costs outweigh the benefits for collectors.

If people choose to use the service, they obviously disagree that the costs outweigh the benefits.

jmlanzaf

@J2035 said:

@MasonG said:

@J2035 said:
Unlike the advent of TPGs and CAC, I fail to see how this change adds any value for the collector.

It's voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

@J2035 said:
I see ... eventual pressure to reholder existing coins which costs money with no added benefit (preserving current liquidity as a carrying cost).

Who are you thinking it is that would be pressuring you?

In your first point, you are responding to an argument I never made. Of course anyone is free to participate or not participate and spend their dollars as they see fit. Companies are free to test any product or innovation they wish. This is how products improve. Doesn’t mean I have to like every new product or innovation.

Second, if there is pressure to reslab, then the concept must have caught on. If it does catch on, that does not mean it comes without cost. My point is simple - the costs outweigh the benefits for collectors. My PR70 moderns have liquidity now, why should I want to pay more money to maintain that liquidity?

I will concede that if this change brings in a large number of new collectors that would not have otherwise collected and that provides market price, then potentially it could be a benefit for collectors despite the costs.

Why do you pay to slab the coins in the first place? Your raw moderns have liquidity and are all 69s and 70s even when raw. Answer: 70s carry a premium in the market. You get more than it costs to slab. Why do people CAC coins that are already slabbed by a premier grading service? Answer: Because the CAC has cachet in the market and you get more than it costs to CAC. If you have to reslab your coins to the 10 scale, it is because there is more value in the 10 scale and so you reap more than you sow. If you don't, you can leave the coins just as they are.