@Chevyrose said:
Do you have a copy of Walter Breens encyclopedia of US and colonial coins?
Yeah I didn’t think you did
I'm sure you think you were proving a point. Well done!
Wrong one
Making memes on you computer of baby’s crying kinda ironic
Take some lsd
Also not sure how the lsd argument comes into play again. I’ve taken plenty of lsd in my high school years but I’m curious how you think it would affect @MasonG ‘s Perspective on collectibles grading.
@jmlanzaf said:
Everyone hates change. But you don't have to slab anything much less reslab anything.
That's not what I'm told.
By the same people who spend more on the slab than the coin because it needs to go on their registry set. They want the gods to save them from themselves.
Who is spending more on the slab?
I buy coins and then send them to PCGS. I try to screen out the coins I think will grade less than 70 and resell my rejects raw. Occasionally I buy a 70 off EBay if it’s cheaper than making one.
I don’t have a registry set for ASE or any type of commemorative- I just collect for fun.
There are a lot of collectors that collect using a variety of strategies. You don’t need to insult them.
If you want to bash people who collect 70s and registry sets, you are on the wrong forum. Collector demand for moderns pays the bills at PCGS these days.
The 1-10 scale reminds me of the “grading” scale drunk men use to rate the aesthetics of women at a bar. Maybe they thought applying a familiar number system would make it more relatable to younger men looking to spend a lot of cash. 🤣
No wonder the interviewer doesn't think a 70 point grading scale makes sense. The guy doesn't even know what part of the 20th Century EAC/Penny Whimsy was written or that Sheldon assigned the 70 grade to numerous coins. A little basic research and preparation would have given him some credibility.
The given reasons for and the praise for the 10 point scale are extremely contradictory. It can't be both "old and familiar" and "Bold! and Innovative!"
Gonna see a lot of these Perfect 10!s on home shopping channels. As others have said/suggested, this looks more like an idea to get grandma and grandpa to buy something they know nothing about.
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
@TheRegulator said:
No wonder the interviewer doesn't think a 70 point grading scale makes sense. The guy doesn't even know what part of the 20th Century EAC/Penny Whimsy was written or that Sheldon assigned the 70 grade to numerous coins. A little basic research and preparation would have given him some credibility.
The given reasons for and the praise for the 10 point scale are extremely contradictory. It can't be both "old and familiar" and "Bold! and Innovative!"
Gonna see a lot of these Perfect 10!s on home shopping channels. As others have said/suggested, this looks more like an idea to get grandma and grandpa to buy something they know nothing about.
. You are totally ignoring the justification given in the podcast. This is about expanding collector base. PERIOD. Say what you want, but that is what is about. You either think collector base expansion is good, or, you think that sticking to a Large Cent grading scheme of 70 years ago should carry on, because well, we are comfortable with it. We will see how this plays out, I am guessing those that believe in the Large Cent grading scheme are going to be surprised at the success of the base 10 system and how it opens up numismatic collecting beyond the current collector base..........
You are totally ignoring the justification given in the podcast. This is about expanding collector base. PERIOD. Say what you want, but that is what is about. You either think collector base expansion is good, or, you think that sticking to a Large Cent grading scheme of 70 years ago should carry on, because well, we are comfortable with it. We will see how this plays out, I am guessing those that believe in the Large Cent grading scheme are going to be surprised at the success of the base 10 system and how it opens up numismatic collecting beyond the current collector base..........
Yes.
The only bottom line is whether this is effective or not.
It appears well thought out and well supported. I have high hopes.
@cameonut2011 said:
The 1-10 scale reminds me of the “grading” scale drunk men use to rate the aesthetics of women at a bar. Maybe they thought applying a familiar number system would make it more relatable to younger men looking to spend a lot of cash. 🤣
I don't understand. Isn't every woman a 10 after a few drinks?
@spacehayduke said: You are totally ignoring the justification given in the podcast. This is about expanding collector base. PERIOD. Say what you want, but that is what is about. You either think collector base expansion is good, or, you think that sticking to a Large Cent grading scheme of 70 years ago should carry on, because well, we are comfortable with it. We will see how this plays out, I am guessing those that believe in the Large Cent grading scheme are going to be surprised at the success of the base 10 system and how it opens up numismatic collecting beyond the current collector base..........
Totally agree. To me, it seems like much ado about nothing, so I'm a little surprised it has generated 4 pages and counting of comments, in addition to the other threads. It's simple relabeling in an attempt to make grading more accessible to newbies.
Given the coins they are targeting, which are almost exclusively MS/PR 68-70, calling them 9.8-10 changes nothing, and will mean absolutely nothing to established collectors. Highly unlikely anyone will ever spend money to have a 70 reholdered to a 10, and I'm pretty sure NGC is not counting on that.
I doubt it's going to catch on, because it seems very unnecessary, and unlikely to attract someone to numismatics who was not already inclined, merely because 10 is easier to grasp than 70, and the people they are targeting are morons who won't develop an interest in coins unless they are graded on a familiar scale, and 69/70 or 70/70 is just too complex to comprehend while 9.9/10 or 10/10 is natural and intuitive.
But why vilify NGC for trying to grow their business? Either it works or it doesn't. Either way, it shouldn't mean anything to established collectors. A CAC sticker has value because JA has credibility and people respect his opinion. No one is going to place added value on an ASE graded 10 instead of 70, just because a subset of newbies understand 10 and don't understand 70. Assuming they become collectors, they will learn the language and learn how to convert a 9.9 to 69 and 10 to 70. I have faith!
@jmlanzaf said:
Everyone hates change. But you don't have to slab anything much less reslab anything.
That's not what I'm told.
By the same people who spend more on the slab than the coin because it needs to go on their registry set. They want the gods to save them from themselves.
Who is spending more on the slab?
I buy coins and then send them to PCGS. I try to screen out the coins I think will grade less than 70 and resell my rejects raw. Occasionally I buy a 70 off EBay if it’s cheaper than making one.
I don’t have a registry set for ASE or any type of commemorative- I just collect for fun.
There are a lot of collectors that collect using a variety of strategies. You don’t need to insult them.
If you want to bash people who collect 70s and registry sets, you are on the wrong forum. Collector demand for moderns pays the bills at PCGS these days.
Did i mention you?
Go look at Jefferson nickel registry sets. You'll find plenty of $1 coins in $30 holders.
Registry sets were the most brilliant marketing strategy that coins have ever seen. They created the need to slab dollar or under coins to complete registry sets. They drive bidding on condition census rarities of common coins for people that want to win. It was brilliant.
I don't care who collects what or how. I'm not bashing anyone.
But this thread is full of people saying you will HAVE to reslab everything if this catches on. I don't feel that I have to slab anything. But those that do want to be saved from themselves. Otherwise, there's no need to fear a 10 point system that you can simply ignore.
@TheRegulator said:
No wonder the interviewer doesn't think a 70 point grading scale makes sense. The guy doesn't even know what part of the 20th Century EAC/Penny Whimsy was written or that Sheldon assigned the 70 grade to numerous coins. A little basic research and preparation would have given him some credibility.
The given reasons for and the praise for the 10 point scale are extremely contradictory. It can't be both "old and familiar" and "Bold! and Innovative!"
Gonna see a lot of these Perfect 10!s on home shopping channels. As others have said/suggested, this looks more like an idea to get grandma and grandpa to buy something they know nothing about.
Actually it can be both old and bold. Preparation H has been around forever. It's old. Using it to remove bags under eyes was new and bold.
Botox was old (and deadly) for centuries. Using it to remove wrinkles was bold and innovative.
@cameonut2011 said:
The 1-10 scale reminds me of the “grading” scale drunk men use to rate the aesthetics of women at a bar. Maybe they thought applying a familiar number system would make it more relatable to younger men looking to spend a lot of cash. 🤣
I don't understand. Isn't every woman a 10 after a few drinks?
Kind of like all those blast white silver eagles when the grader is in a hurry to leave for the day and has a lot of eye strain…
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
The major TPGs use and the ANA teaches Market Grading so that is worth thinking about.
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
The major TPGs use and the ANA teaches Market Grading so that is worth thinking about.
Actually NGC grades ancients with an overall grade, a strike grade and a surface grade.
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
The major TPGs use and the ANA teaches Market Grading so that is worth thinking about.
Actually NGC grades ancients with an overall grade, a strike grade and a surface grade.
And also on a 5 scale.
Do we know how large Ancients are as part of NGC's business?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
No. I'm sure it wasn't.
However the computer program that was written to grade coins did rate a coin on various parameters and then tried to assign a net grade. This is not the same thing.
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
With sports cards things like centering, die condition, and printing make little difference because most cards are cookie cutter examples of one another. This is hardly true for 1966 quarters or any moderns.
What makes moderns so special and so adaptable to new ways to grade them is that the vast majority have no wear at all and surface issues are rarely relevant. There is no component often called "eye appeal" to cloud grading. Certainly some look much better or worse than others due to surface, handling, and production issues and they vary by date and mint but most 1984 half dollars have equal "eye appeal". A few have nice reflective surfaces and a few almost look like matte proofs but this consideration does not affect the vast majority of moderns which are unworn BU or Proofs.
Using other standards, scales, or just a numbering system is more adaptable to moderns.
However the computer program that was written to grade coins did rate a coin on various parameters and then tried to assign a net grade. This is not the same thing.
This is essentially the same thing a human grader does whether we realize it or not. In order to rate a coin we look at each of its attributes and assign an overall grade to it. If we don't like some characteristic we probably won't like the coin. I personally like hammered coin made with brand new dies best of all. They aren't as lustrous but I like details more than "shiny". They look like little disc shaped sculpture to me. Of course I came to like this by trying to find moderns for circulation that look like this and with each die making millions of coins and a tiny percentage being saved, these are invariably highly elusive.
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
No. I'm sure it wasn't.
However the computer program that was written to grade coins did rate a coin on various parameters and then tried to assign a net grade. This is not the same thing.
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
With sports cards things like centering, die condition, and printing make little difference because most cards are cookie cutter examples of one another. This is hardly true for 1966 quarters or any moderns.
What makes moderns so special and so adaptable to new ways to grade them is that the vast majority have no wear at all and surface issues are rarely relevant. There is no component often called "eye appeal" to cloud grading. Certainly some look much better or worse than others due to surface, handling, and production issues and they vary by date and mint but most 1984 half dollars have equal "eye appeal". A few have nice reflective surfaces and a few almost look like matte proofs but this consideration does not affect the vast majority of moderns which are unworn BU or Proofs.
Using other standards, scales, or just a numbering system is more adaptable to moderns.
You clearly don't do cards. Centering is very important for cards as is clarity and color, condition of the paper, how square the corners are...
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
So you’re saying NGCX should’ve used their successful 5 point ancient’s grading scale system currently in place, and that new guy there blew it with a 10 point untested unknown grading system? Nepotism baby is the current terminology for him.
You clearly don't do cards. Centering is very important for cards as is clarity and color, condition of the paper, how square the corners are...
Quite true.
It was my understanding that most cards are graded primarily on wear and the condition of their corners because other variables tend to be similar from card to card.
You clearly don't do cards. Centering is very important for cards as is clarity and color, condition of the paper, how square the corners are...
Quite true.
It was my understanding that most cards are graded primarily on wear and the condition of their corners because other variables tend to be similar from card to card.
Modern cards are generally well centered. Older cards can vary quite a bit in centering. Older cards also have oxidation of colors as well as yellowing of the cardboard.
@Zoins said:
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Move coins to 10 scale
Move sports cards, comics, stamps, and others to a 70 scale
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
So you’re saying NGCX should’ve used their successful 5 point ancient’s grading scale system currently in place, and that new guy there blew it with a 10 point untested unknown grading system? Nepotism baby is the current terminology for him.
ALL other collectibles are on 10 or 100 point system. It therefore made sense to move coins to a 10 or 100 point system.
The ancients are NOT graded on a 5 point system. They are also not graded on the Sheldon scale, generally. The 5 point system applies only to the sub-classification of strike and surface characteristics. The overall coin grade itself is on the more classic, non-Sheldon system of G/VG/F/VF/XF/AU/MS without any associated numbers. Classically, MS was actually FDC (Fleur des coin)
I won’t be spending money on them retool my modus operindi but might be a buyer if one walks up on bourse or auction can buy right. When I do my next show I will take a look see if any of it on the bourse period.
My focus is cut overhead costs not increase them. For their project they have their work cut out for them plus find the people who will pay the money for it to even get off the runway airborne. I will take them seriously when I see their material in the marketplace at a price competitive with their competition.
Another thing how will this affect numismatic publications like CW Trends or Bluebook? They are just going to drop everything and retool lol to accommodate that?
@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.
There are more reasons to slab coins than the one that you stated. I slab my coins (ANACS) because I like to be able to store them that way and when I die, my wife will at least have a starting point when she needs/wants to sell them. Fortunately, the fundamental grading class that I teach does not involve modern coins so I won't need to teach the new system but if that were not the case, I would not teach it anyway. I hope that the ANA does not involve itself with the new system and I personally would not vote for, and actively campaign against, any ANA governor candidate who embraces this system.
I admit though that the idea that this will bring more collectors to the hobby is interesting and only time will tell. I always compliment my students because learning how to grade is a brave act. It involves putting yourself in a position where you could be wrong and no one wants to be "wrong" doing something for fun.
I'm a bit jaded when it comes to tpg companies. They have done things in the past with not the best interests of the collector at heart. I wager there are a ton of people who left the hobby after paying a premium price for an "Early Release" or "First Strike" and not getting nearly what they paid for it from a dealer who knew what those terms actually mean.
@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.
There are more reasons to slab coins than the one that you stated. I slab my coins (ANACS) because I like to be able to store them that way and when I die, my wife will at least have a starting point when she needs/wants to sell them. Fortunately, the fundamental grading class that I teach does not involve modern coins so I won't need to teach the new system but if that were not the case, I would not teach it anyway. I hope that the ANA does not involve itself with the new system and I personally would not vote for, and actively campaign against, any ANA governor candidate who embraces this system.
I admit though that the idea that this will bring more collectors to the hobby is interesting and only time will tell. I always compliment my students because learning how to grade is a brave act. It involves putting yourself in a position where you could be wrong and no one wants to be "wrong" doing something for fun.
I'm a bit jaded when it comes to tpg companies. They have done things in the past with not the best interests of the collector at heart. I wager there are a ton of people who left the hobby after paying a premium price for an "Early Release" or "First Strike" and not getting nearly what they paid for it from a dealer who knew what those terms actually mean.
Agreed. I did not intend that to be a comprehensive list of reasons why people slab. It was a specific response to people complaining that they would have to re-slab on the 10 scale. And, of course, you only "need" to re-slab if you reap a financial benefit or if you want to. You never "have to".
I am not anticipating that a new scale will have great success but if you think that the Sheldon scale will go marching down the yellow brick road forever you are kidding yourself.
Comments
If I’m a troll you’re the rat from Chuck E. Cheese’s
That’s a question for mason
Drop a tab mason
There is no Breen encyclopedia titled "Walter Breens encyclopedia of US and colonial coins", you know. Or maybe you didn't?
Maybe you shouldn’t try lsd
Wrong title- wrong book. That's "Walter Breens Complete Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Coins".
You’re a 10.0 if boredom was a grade
Nothing. I was just fooling around with him- he seems to like the attention.
Who is spending more on the slab?
I buy coins and then send them to PCGS. I try to screen out the coins I think will grade less than 70 and resell my rejects raw. Occasionally I buy a 70 off EBay if it’s cheaper than making one.
I don’t have a registry set for ASE or any type of commemorative- I just collect for fun.
There are a lot of collectors that collect using a variety of strategies. You don’t need to insult them.
If you want to bash people who collect 70s and registry sets, you are on the wrong forum. Collector demand for moderns pays the bills at PCGS these days.
The 1-10 scale reminds me of the “grading” scale drunk men use to rate the aesthetics of women at a bar. Maybe they thought applying a familiar number system would make it more relatable to younger men looking to spend a lot of cash. 🤣
No wonder the interviewer doesn't think a 70 point grading scale makes sense. The guy doesn't even know what part of the 20th Century EAC/Penny Whimsy was written or that Sheldon assigned the 70 grade to numerous coins. A little basic research and preparation would have given him some credibility.
The given reasons for and the praise for the 10 point scale are extremely contradictory. It can't be both "old and familiar" and "Bold! and Innovative!"
Gonna see a lot of these Perfect 10!s on home shopping channels. As others have said/suggested, this looks more like an idea to get grandma and grandpa to buy something they know nothing about.
.
You are totally ignoring the justification given in the podcast. This is about expanding collector base. PERIOD. Say what you want, but that is what is about. You either think collector base expansion is good, or, you think that sticking to a Large Cent grading scheme of 70 years ago should carry on, because well, we are comfortable with it. We will see how this plays out, I am guessing those that believe in the Large Cent grading scheme are going to be surprised at the success of the base 10 system and how it opens up numismatic collecting beyond the current collector base..........
Yes.
The only bottom line is whether this is effective or not.
It appears well thought out and well supported. I have high hopes.
I don't understand. Isn't every woman a 10 after a few drinks?
Totally agree. To me, it seems like much ado about nothing, so I'm a little surprised it has generated 4 pages and counting of comments, in addition to the other threads. It's simple relabeling in an attempt to make grading more accessible to newbies.
Given the coins they are targeting, which are almost exclusively MS/PR 68-70, calling them 9.8-10 changes nothing, and will mean absolutely nothing to established collectors. Highly unlikely anyone will ever spend money to have a 70 reholdered to a 10, and I'm pretty sure NGC is not counting on that.
I doubt it's going to catch on, because it seems very unnecessary, and unlikely to attract someone to numismatics who was not already inclined, merely because 10 is easier to grasp than 70, and the people they are targeting are morons who won't develop an interest in coins unless they are graded on a familiar scale, and 69/70 or 70/70 is just too complex to comprehend while 9.9/10 or 10/10 is natural and intuitive.
But why vilify NGC for trying to grow their business? Either it works or it doesn't. Either way, it shouldn't mean anything to established collectors. A CAC sticker has value because JA has credibility and people respect his opinion. No one is going to place added value on an ASE graded 10 instead of 70, just because a subset of newbies understand 10 and don't understand 70. Assuming they become collectors, they will learn the language and learn how to convert a 9.9 to 69 and 10 to 70. I have faith!
Did i mention you?
Go look at Jefferson nickel registry sets. You'll find plenty of $1 coins in $30 holders.
Registry sets were the most brilliant marketing strategy that coins have ever seen. They created the need to slab dollar or under coins to complete registry sets. They drive bidding on condition census rarities of common coins for people that want to win. It was brilliant.
I don't care who collects what or how. I'm not bashing anyone.
But this thread is full of people saying you will HAVE to reslab everything if this catches on. I don't feel that I have to slab anything. But those that do want to be saved from themselves. Otherwise, there's no need to fear a 10 point system that you can simply ignore.
Actually it can be both old and bold. Preparation H has been around forever. It's old. Using it to remove bags under eyes was new and bold.
Botox was old (and deadly) for centuries. Using it to remove wrinkles was bold and innovative.
He likes to create weird tests. I'm going to tell him not to respond to me until he posts his junk online.
But this is a coin forum. That would be inappropriate.
If I wanted to see junk online I’d just look at your ebay
oh, that hurts. How will I ever recover? A troll kicked me in the shins.
I dropped 3 tabs and posted my whole collection
But he would be using a loupe to visualize?
It was, of course, a joke. But how is LSD coin related?
Kind of like all those blast white silver eagles when the grader is in a hurry to leave for the day and has a lot of eye strain…
Take some and find out for yourself
The jokes just write themselves.
I used the NGCX new grading system today...
And can report it works well while picking out pastries in the bakery case!
If we want consistency to grow adoption, the options for consistency seem to be:
Which is more desirable overall?
There is only one possible solution to achieve consistency and that is to grade on a multi-point scale; ie- one grade for each attribute like strike, luster, and die condition, etc.
The great thing about such a system is that you can picture the coin from the grade and the worst part is that coins are more difficult to price. The grading services would really be pricing services which isn't really a change at all if you think about it.
Wasn't this tried unsuccessfully for coins?
And how could this be applied to say sports cards?
The major TPGs use and the ANA teaches Market Grading so that is worth thinking about.
But he would be using a loupe to visualize?
> @Zoins said:
Actually NGC grades ancients with an overall grade, a strike grade and a surface grade.
And also on a 5 scale.
Do we know how large Ancients are as part of NGC's business?
No. I'm sure it wasn't.
However the computer program that was written to grade coins did rate a coin on various parameters and then tried to assign a net grade. This is not the same thing.
With sports cards things like centering, die condition, and printing make little difference because most cards are cookie cutter examples of one another. This is hardly true for 1966 quarters or any moderns.
What makes moderns so special and so adaptable to new ways to grade them is that the vast majority have no wear at all and surface issues are rarely relevant. There is no component often called "eye appeal" to cloud grading. Certainly some look much better or worse than others due to surface, handling, and production issues and they vary by date and mint but most 1984 half dollars have equal "eye appeal". A few have nice reflective surfaces and a few almost look like matte proofs but this consideration does not affect the vast majority of moderns which are unworn BU or Proofs.
Using other standards, scales, or just a numbering system is more adaptable to moderns.
This is essentially the same thing a human grader does whether we realize it or not. In order to rate a coin we look at each of its attributes and assign an overall grade to it. If we don't like some characteristic we probably won't like the coin. I personally like hammered coin made with brand new dies best of all. They aren't as lustrous but I like details more than "shiny". They look like little disc shaped sculpture to me. Of course I came to like this by trying to find moderns for circulation that look like this and with each die making millions of coins and a tiny percentage being saved, these are invariably highly elusive.
You clearly don't do cards. Centering is very important for cards as is clarity and color, condition of the paper, how square the corners are...
So you’re saying NGCX should’ve used their successful 5 point ancient’s grading scale system currently in place, and that new guy there blew it with a 10 point untested unknown grading system? Nepotism baby is the current terminology for him.
Quite true.
It was my understanding that most cards are graded primarily on wear and the condition of their corners because other variables tend to be similar from card to card.
Modern cards are generally well centered. Older cards can vary quite a bit in centering. Older cards also have oxidation of colors as well as yellowing of the cardboard.
ALL other collectibles are on 10 or 100 point system. It therefore made sense to move coins to a 10 or 100 point system.
The ancients are NOT graded on a 5 point system. They are also not graded on the Sheldon scale, generally. The 5 point system applies only to the sub-classification of strike and surface characteristics. The overall coin grade itself is on the more classic, non-Sheldon system of G/VG/F/VF/XF/AU/MS without any associated numbers. Classically, MS was actually FDC (Fleur des coin)
I won’t be spending money on them retool my modus operindi but might be a buyer if one walks up on bourse or auction can buy right. When I do my next show I will take a look see if any of it on the bourse period.
My focus is cut overhead costs not increase them. For their project they have their work cut out for them plus find the people who will pay the money for it to even get off the runway airborne. I will take them seriously when I see their material in the marketplace at a price competitive with their competition.
Another thing how will this affect numismatic publications like CW Trends or Bluebook? They are just going to drop everything and retool lol to accommodate that?
There are more reasons to slab coins than the one that you stated. I slab my coins (ANACS) because I like to be able to store them that way and when I die, my wife will at least have a starting point when she needs/wants to sell them. Fortunately, the fundamental grading class that I teach does not involve modern coins so I won't need to teach the new system but if that were not the case, I would not teach it anyway. I hope that the ANA does not involve itself with the new system and I personally would not vote for, and actively campaign against, any ANA governor candidate who embraces this system.
I admit though that the idea that this will bring more collectors to the hobby is interesting and only time will tell. I always compliment my students because learning how to grade is a brave act. It involves putting yourself in a position where you could be wrong and no one wants to be "wrong" doing something for fun.
I'm a bit jaded when it comes to tpg companies. They have done things in the past with not the best interests of the collector at heart. I wager there are a ton of people who left the hobby after paying a premium price for an "Early Release" or "First Strike" and not getting nearly what they paid for it from a dealer who knew what those terms actually mean.
Agreed. I did not intend that to be a comprehensive list of reasons why people slab. It was a specific response to people complaining that they would have to re-slab on the 10 scale. And, of course, you only "need" to re-slab if you reap a financial benefit or if you want to. You never "have to".
I am not anticipating that a new scale will have great success but if you think that the Sheldon scale will go marching down the yellow brick road forever you are kidding yourself.
Change is the only constant.
Where will these coins be priced (MV)?
Usual places