@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
The Practical should come through handling coins and/or backed by classes such as summer seminar.
I'll be there @ Mesa as well, but early AM. Not sure how long I'll stay.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
If there really were specific and quantifiable and consistent "standards" think how much money the grading services would lose on fewer crackouts and resubmissions and crosses etc. I'm not saying the services do this on purpose but its an art not a science. Until computers are used we will never get there
@FlyingAl said:
Services all grade to different standards. If NGC wants to be "more conservative", something a lot of members have been saying they are doing, they just need to tighten their standards a little more. PCGS and CACG could do the same.
No one service is necessarily better than the other, as the best finalizers kinda get shuffled around. However, those finalizers grade to the service's standard, not their own.
Who or whom establishes the grading standards? A board? And is it probably that at some point the makeup of people who establish said standard leave/pass on? Thereby new blood with possible new standard views incorporate a new different standard then the previous one? Would not that alter/negate previous established standards?
Ideally the standards are published. PCGS has done a decent job of this with Photograde and their book. I'm not sure if the competition have books or not, but if they don't it would be nice if they would.
We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but "published standards" are worthless. Trying to define the criteria for grades above ms-60 is a fools errand, as it all depends on one's interpretation of subjective descriptors. I.E. "Nearly as perfect" "Virtually flawless", "minor blemishes". If you lined up a PCGS 65, NGC 65, and a CACG 65 next to each other, you wouldn't be able to discern which coin doesn't meet those criteria.
Some of it's subjective, some of it is not so much. I refer to the standards quite a bit lately and I can often correlate or understand the grade on the slab once I refresh my memory of the criteria in the guide. Yes, a lot of it is a judgement call. A "severe" mark in a focal area will decide if this coin comes back 62 or 63. This is just a teaser for now, but I have a coin that will be on it's way to PCGS soon. I'm 50/50 on whether this qualifies as "severe" because although it is in a prime location, you could argue it's not really bad enough to be labeled severe. I can see where on a given day the assessment can flip flop.
Anyway, I'm kind of making your point, but there are some hard and fast rules such as:
For an AU coin, a very weak strike cannot be AU58.
This is definitely, 100% not true. The strike isn’t even a factor in that grade.
Then you're arguing with the book but not me. The book says it can be below average to full but it can't be weak. I believe the book is correct.
An MS65 must be well struck and have positive eye appeal.
No, there are poorly struck MS65s and there are definitely ugly MS65s.
I misquoted the book, it says the coin "will be well struck" (rather than must) but it is clear that "The overall eye appeal still must be positive or the coin does not merit MS65." Maybe your comment speaks to the wide spectrum of what is considered positive eye appeal as I think a lot of coins are ugly that others do not.
If luster is poor, a coin cannot be graded MS63 even with full strike and acceptable marks.
Definitely not true.
The book is very clear: If the luster is poor, the coin would not be graded MS-63, even with full strike and acceptable marks/hairlines for the grade. Prior to acknowledging this line in the book, I bought what I thought were several very nice MS62s thinking they were under graded when it turns out these coins have poor luster and that is the reason they are in 62 holders.
No idea what book you’re referring to, but moreover there is no book that matters. What matters is how the TPGs choose to enact their standards.
And if the TPG wrote the book?
You're making definitive statements with no evidence. You didn't even read the book the TPG wrote.
Yes, there is some "fluidity" in grading as well as some inconsistencies. But there ARE standards.
See my later comment. Frankly, you’re the one making definitive statements with no evidence. You don’t know what I’ve read or haven’t read. But it should be obvious that the “standards” written in any book, by anyone, at any time, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. There are many standards by many people at infinite points in time over the course of the TPGs, and none of those standards can be accurately or fully represented in words beyond a brief and fairly meaningless attempt at a summary.
And yet all experienced collectors know what they are...
As for the book you didn't read, that was a joke.
Did you mean that all experienced collectors know what the written standards are, what the actually- practiced standards are or both? Whatever you meant, certainly not “all experienced collectors” (or, for that matter, dealers) know what “they” are.
Then they aren't very experienced...
Inexactness or variations aside, the grading standards are not sold mysterious as people are suggesting. Even in this mixed experience forum, GTG tends to cluster within a couple points of each other and usually includes the correct grade. There are always, of course, outliers.
In my opinion, inexactness and variations (which you apparently prefer to put aside) occur with enough frequency to nullify your assertion that “all experienced collectors know what they are.” We’re far enough apart in our opinions that I’m not going to waste your time, mine or anyone else’s debating this. So, you’re on your own.😉
Hmmm... that seems a bit of an overreaction. Grades are human applied opinions. There is going to be a spread by is very nature. If 100 expert graders liked at the same coin, I would expect 95+ of them to be within half a point of each other. That's a normal distribution.
Even on this forum with mostly amateurs, the spread isn't usually more then +/- 1 point for 95% of the opinions. I don't consider that slight variance to be anything other than statistical. It certainly isn't evidence, as some are trying to use it, of standardless grading.
I know you've left me on my own. I post this for others... most of whom have me on ignore. 😈
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could become quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides. [Assuming, of course, that the guide is current - damn those VF Buffaloes]
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
The Practical should come through handling coins and/or backed by classes such as summer seminar.
I'll be there @ Mesa as well, but early AM. Not sure how long I'll stay.
I'm saying w/o a penchant for being visually detail oriented (not everyone is cut out for this) and substantial hands on, words on pages won't get you very far. Doesn't matter how long someone has been collecting, or how many books they've read.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Trying to define precise, repeatable grading standards for grade 1-70 in all the coin series is an impossible task. The major TPGs do a good job already and agree for 'most' coins a 1 grade difference up/down is not super significant. When the price jumps 100% and more in 1 grade, obviously would like 100% consistency.
I'd just like to see standards for MS vs Circulated and Details vs Clean Grades. All the experts should be able to define this big picture standard and stick to it. For collectors, a 'mistake' here is in most cases a large pricing difference. A details coin is likely a 50% loss vs clean grade.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
Not to confuse things more, but the focus here seems to be on standards for US Federal coins, by implication. A discussion of grading standards encompassing colonials, early coppers, pioneers, world coins, medals, etc. would show how fruitless this is - not that we shouldn’t try mind you.
Try just one "simple" area of grading: Certification. Books are great for tips and tricks, but they will never cover all possible aspects of detecting counterfeits. Bill Fivaz wrote an excellent book on US gold counterfeit detection (albeit quite dated now), and you can read it and memorize it cover to cover but you'll never be great at detecting counterfeits without spending LOTs of time hands on with real and counterfeit coins. Very few seasoned pros instinctively know something is wrong on a NG coin relatively quickly even if they can't verbalize it right away. Most dealers can't tell a counterfeit to save their life despite being in the business for decades. Access to databases is also helpful of course.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Nothing quite like the quick reads (no books) when your grades pop. And then a further study (still no books) once they've arrived. But that's just my take I like books of pictures.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
One other variable no one has mentioned is the value of the coin being graded. That is to say most likely a semi key or key coin will be more scrutinized and harsher graded than a more common date. So one might say there are 2 grading standards for common coins and more expensive ones with big price differences between the next grade. So how do you factor in a MS 64 FH SlQ 1926 D where the jump to 65 is huge as opposed to a MS 64 FH 1930 where the jump to 65 is minimal. Do you think they will be graded equally?
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
Thanks, that's basically what I've been saying. Lately I've been evaluating my coins to see if any are undergraded. If the coin looks to me to be near the top of its grade or beyond, I reference the book and see what it says about the next grade higher. Then I look back at my coin to see if it meets that criteria. In the vast majority of cases because of the description I can see why attempting an upgrade is futile because the coin does not meet the documented standard even though the terms and criteria are all subjective. Then I read the criteria for the grade it is and I can see that it matches well. The places where I struggle is in the cases where I have to ask, how did the toning affect this grade? Or the mark is severe but it's in a "good" location so it doesn't distract from the appeal so does that count? How do spots affect the assessment of appeal? Those are things that aren't really documented.
“The places where I struggle is in the cases where I have to ask, how did the toning affect this grade? Or the mark is severe but it's in a "good" location so it doesn't distract from the appeal so does that count? How do spots affect the assessment of appeal? Those are things that aren't really documented. “
That’s EXACTLY the point, because they can NOT be documented. It’s impossible to use language to describe how a decision like that is made, there are simply too many variables to take into consideration.
I understand where you’re coming from, but none of what I know was due to my geographical location. Thats why I’ve been suggesting that you should to go to coin shows, talk to graders both present and former, and I can not stress enough- SUMMER SEMINAR. Take the level two class with Feltner and McCarthy if possible, you’ll be ok.
Forgive my hyperbole when I said the written standards are “worthless”, but they’re just a starting point or basis, and the rest is experience. I know we’ve been using the term “conjecture”, but a more accurate term for this discussion would be “hearsay”. What is a book, other than written version of hearsay and experiences?
Something that really stuck with me after the lightbulb finally came on in my head: Those with vast grading experience often will say “The coin is in a 63 holder” or “It’s currently graded 53 by PCGS” instead of using absolute language such as “The coin IS a 66”. Im glad that you’re going to talk to JA, but remember that he is not the official arbiter of truth, and what would be taught by PCGS graders will differ from what is taught by a CAC grader, or an NGC grader. Honestly, my first talk with JA probably left me more confused than I was going into it, but once I acknowledged that there is no such thing as the “correct grade”, then it began to make sense.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
What is the point you’re making in this discussion, other than being devils advocate? I would echo @lonemountaincoin’s comment in response, but I’m not sure why you’re here, exactly.
@PeakRarities said:
“The places where I struggle is in the cases where I have to ask, how did the toning affect this grade? Or the mark is severe but it's in a "good" location so it doesn't distract from the appeal so does that count? How do spots affect the assessment of appeal? Those are things that aren't really documented. “
That’s EXACTLY the point, because they can NOT be documented. It’s impossible to use language to describe how a decision like that is made, there are simply too many variables to take into consideration.
Of course they can be documented. An experienced grader from a TPG can provide 5, 10, a dozen examples and say in this case, the toning was pleasing and resulted in a 1 point grade bump. On this coin, the toning wasn't quite as nice but still contributed 1/2 point. On this coin, the toning detracted from the coin and resulted in a deduction... etc... Examples and guidelines can certainly be documented and published. Then the reader can interpolate the examples into what he sees in his hands. I don't understand why nothing can be written down. Do the grading classes and summer seminar have written materials? I understand they aren't book courses and involve a lot of "lab" work but surely it's not all verbal.
I understand where you’re coming from, but none of what I know was due to my geographical location. Thats why I’ve been suggesting that you should to go to coin shows, talk to graders both present and former, and I can not stress enough- SUMMER SEMINAR. Take the level two class with Feltner and McCarthy if possible, you’ll be ok.
Would love to. It's kind of hard to take the time off and leave the wife and family behind (they certainly won't want to come). When the opportunity arises I do plan to do things like this but it's hard to do without traveling and having a full time job.
Forgive my hyperbole when I said the written standards are “worthless”, but they’re just a starting point or basis, and the rest is experience. I know we’ve been using the term “conjecture”, but a more accurate term for this discussion would be “hearsay”. What is a book, other than written version of hearsay and experiences?
Hearsay is inadmissible in court. Documents are admissible. Surely you can figure out why this is the case. Surely you can understand skepticism when someone makes a claim that is not backed by any official source. That doesn't mean they're wrong or making it up, but just that the claim has yet to be documented.
Something that really stuck with me after the lightbulb finally came on in my head: Those with vast grading experience often will say “The coin is in a 63 holder” or “It’s currently graded 53 by PCGS” instead of using absolute language such as “The coin IS a 66”. Im glad that you’re going to talk to JA, but remember that he is not the official arbiter of truth, and what would be taught by PCGS graders will differ from what is taught by a CAC grader, or an NGC grader. Honestly, my first talk with JA probably left me more confused than I was going into it, but once I acknowledged that there is no such thing as the “correct grade”, then it began to make sense.
I was not able to call him today so I will be trying again next week. I understand what you're saying here, and I've understood that for a long time. That is why the CAC bean is so valuable because the second opinion affirms the first, but in the end they are still just opinions.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
What is the point you’re making in this discussion, other than being devils advocate? I would echo @lonemountaincoin’s comment in response, but I’m not sure why you’re here, exactly.
I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate and I slightly resent the implication. I have held the same position since my first post.
I started by trying to soften the two extremes. I seem to be ending by needing to defend my position. The kerfuffle started with too many people taking the extreme position. It was either "printed guides are the Bible" or "printed guides are worthless". Since you've now retracted "worthless", that's one less extreme position held.
Let me summarize my position:
There are written standards.
The standards matter.
There is interpretation of the standards in their application.
You need to both know the standard and study the application of those standards.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
What is the point you’re making in this discussion, other than being devils advocate? I would echo @lonemountaincoin’s comment in response, but I’m not sure why you’re here, exactly.
I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate and I slightly resent the implication. I have held the same position since my first post.
I started by trying to soften the two extremes. I seem to be ending by needing to defend my position. The kerfuffle started with too many people taking the extreme position. It was either "printed guides are the Bible" or "printed guides are worthless". Since you've now retracted "worthless", that's one less extreme position held.
Let me summarize my position:
There are written standards.
The standards matter.
There is interpretation of the standards in their application.
You need to both know the standard and study the application of those standards.
I know. Very controversial opinion.
So out of everything I’ve ever said on this topic, you zero in one hyperbolic descriptor? You’re interpreting my comments far too literally, which coincidentally is what I’m arguing against.
Our position is far from “extreme”, but I don’t fully agree with all of your points. As LMC said, you can become an experienced grader without studying the written standards, but you can’t become one by only studying the written standards. PC recently asked if there’s any written material at summer seminar, and there isn’t. We spent no time reading the standards, though the common areas of contention are discussed thoroughly and you can take notes.
Written standards are akin price guides, it’s just a starting point but they shouldn’t be treated like gospel. Like many things in the world, there is no substitute for experience. You can study construction as much as you want, but one day on a job site working for the high school dropout foreman, who uses one cigarette to light the next cigarette, will have you questioning your entire life.
@lonemountaincoin said:
Yes the books are academic by definition. As soon as they are in print they are outdated. Books do not reflect the current industry standards which are more nuanced and fluid. My .02c is that when it comes to grading you're much better off learning through hands on practice than learning through books. That's the Art vs. Science part.
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could becine quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides.
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
What is the point you’re making in this discussion, other than being devils advocate? I would echo @lonemountaincoin’s comment in response, but I’m not sure why you’re here, exactly.
I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate and I slightly resent the implication. I have held the same position since my first post.
I started by trying to soften the two extremes. I seem to be ending by needing to defend my position. The kerfuffle started with too many people taking the extreme position. It was either "printed guides are the Bible" or "printed guides are worthless". Since you've now retracted "worthless", that's one less extreme position held.
Let me summarize my position:
There are written standards.
The standards matter.
There is interpretation of the standards in their application.
You need to both know the standard and study the application of those standards.
I know. Very controversial opinion.
So out of everything I’ve ever said on this topic, you zero in one hyperbolic descriptor? You’re interpreting my comments far too literally, which coincidentally is what I’m arguing against.
Our position is far from “extreme”, but I don’t fully agree with all of your points. As LMC said, you can become an experienced grader without studying the written standards, but you can’t become one by only studying the written standards. PC recently asked if there’s any written material at summer seminar, and there isn’t. We spent no time reading the standards, though the common areas of contention are discussed thoroughly and you can take notes.
Written standards are akin price guides, it’s just a starting point but they shouldn’t be treated like gospel. Like many things in the world, there is no substitute for experience. You can study construction as much as you want, but one day on a job site working for the high school dropout foreman, who uses one cigarette to light the next cigarette, will have you questioning your entire life.
I don't really disagree. In fact, you don't really disagree with me, though it's not cool to say so. But at the beginning, people were (in my opinion) being too absolute. It's really only the absolutes that I was objecting to.
I also think there's an overemphasis on the actual writing. Taking to JA is also a form of verbal communication. Looking at coins alone is also useless - which your last post sorry of acknowledges. You wouldn't know what you're looking at and since every coin is unique, it would be very hard to assign a grade to a raw coin. You wouldn't know to sure at marks, luster, strike, etc. That context came from some form of verbal communication whether that is a written guide, internet guide, grading instructor (as you mention), or an old dealer.
@seateddime said:
I terms of the top sets, I am wondering how many collections are being crossed from PCGS to CACG?
I also wonder if those coins will bring a premium.
My only coin that I crossed was an NGC, finest known Eliasberg coin that PCGS would not cross but was a CAC stickers coin.
I have to regrade a ton of coins that never have been to CAC and are in 20+ year holders.
Whats the best option? I
In my opinion, the best option would be to submit to CAC first and go from there. In many cases, getting a sticker would probably be at least as good as a plus grade (on an regrade) and retaining the old holder would be an additional benefit. Depending upon the results, you might want to then try some of the coins for regrade or crossover to CACG.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have material from all 3. Plus I have nice coins from all 3. As I know how to grade and pick out nice coins that retail well for me on the bourse not a player in the generalization game which TPG better / worse. However I do price my CACG at CAC money as per CDN.
Smart players learn how to grade, pickoff PQ material. Then retail, for good money if in the biz. Remember your coins that are PQ you want to price higher than avg quality material.
Comments
Maybe I'm not understanding but you're basically saying that the coin grading standards are moving so fast it's impossible to document them. And by the same logic, as soon as I learned with "hands on" that would be outdated too. I've been collecting for 40 years and I don't buy it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
It’s not even about standards changing. Standards cannot be documented, period. Try explaining the exact threshold between a 63 and a 64 or a details and nettable cleaning in a way that covers every single coin and manifestation of surface damage. You can’t. No grade can be described in its full breadth in any meaningful way.
The only way to learn how to grade is to look at thousands or hundreds of thousands of coins in holders, and not at words in a book.
If there really were specific and quantifiable and consistent "standards" think how much money the grading services would lose on fewer crackouts and resubmissions and crosses etc. I'm not saying the services do this on purpose but its an art not a science. Until computers are used we will never get there
Hmmm... that seems a bit of an overreaction. Grades are human applied opinions. There is going to be a spread by is very nature. If 100 expert graders liked at the same coin, I would expect 95+ of them to be within half a point of each other. That's a normal distribution.
Even on this forum with mostly amateurs, the spread isn't usually more then +/- 1 point for 95% of the opinions. I don't consider that slight variance to be anything other than statistical. It certainly isn't evidence, as some are trying to use it, of standardless grading.
I know you've left me on my own. I post this for others... most of whom have me on ignore. 😈
Obviously, you have to look at coins. But if you looked at 1000 coins without any other information, you would learn nothing about grading. So, you either compare them to pictures or you compare them to descriptions but there are published guides and photoguides that make the viewing of the coins meaningful. Even if that guide is just 1000 pictures of slabbed coins. Coins themselves are far more variable than grading opinions. So unless you know to sure at luster and strike etc., you would learn very little from simply looking at coins.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could read a book or five and be an expert. But just looking at coins won't be completely helpful because it won't tell you WHY one coin is a 65 and a very similar looking coin is a 64 or a 58, for that matter.
I think the books are less useful for unc grades. But I think you could become quite a good grader of circulated coins just from published guides. [Assuming, of course, that the guide is current - damn those VF Buffaloes]
That's precisely what grading sets are. You don't just look at coins with your brain turned off, you look at coins and train the eyes and the brain to spot the differences and the why behind the grades. No one is suggesting looking at coins in a vacuum. Its precisely why coins are variable that it takes visual in hand training, not just books.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
I'm saying w/o a penchant for being visually detail oriented (not everyone is cut out for this) and substantial hands on, words on pages won't get you very far. Doesn't matter how long someone has been collecting, or how many books they've read.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
Where do I buy my grading sets for $35? Oh, in a BOOK. Even a grading set isn't completely helpful unless it had a dozen coins at each grade
And it does sound like some people on both sides are being exclusionary. People have said that no book is useful and one person has all but said that all you need is the book. You need both the book and the coins, lots of coins.
I can learn grading without a single book. I can't learn grading without thousands of coins. You can look at thousands of coins at virtually every auction for free, including ones no one can afford.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
Trying to define precise, repeatable grading standards for grade 1-70 in all the coin series is an impossible task. The major TPGs do a good job already and agree for 'most' coins a 1 grade difference up/down is not super significant. When the price jumps 100% and more in 1 grade, obviously would like 100% consistency.
I'd just like to see standards for MS vs Circulated and Details vs Clean Grades. All the experts should be able to define this big picture standard and stick to it. For collectors, a 'mistake' here is in most cases a large pricing difference. A details coin is likely a 50% loss vs clean grade.
But you also need someone or a book to make that viewing meaningfully. Otherwise, you don't know that coin A is a 66 because of booming luster despite a few marks and that coin B is also a 66 despite fewer marks but subdued luster. Without the context, you're left thinking coin B should be 67.
For most people, that initial context comes from printed guides. And even if you absolutely refuse to read one, then you got that context from an oral source.
Do you know why you know to look at luster, strike and contact marks? Because there is a written standard, even if that written standard isn't completely dispositive on its own.
Not to confuse things more, but the focus here seems to be on standards for US Federal coins, by implication. A discussion of grading standards encompassing colonials, early coppers, pioneers, world coins, medals, etc. would show how fruitless this is - not that we shouldn’t try mind you.
Try just one "simple" area of grading: Certification. Books are great for tips and tricks, but they will never cover all possible aspects of detecting counterfeits. Bill Fivaz wrote an excellent book on US gold counterfeit detection (albeit quite dated now), and you can read it and memorize it cover to cover but you'll never be great at detecting counterfeits without spending LOTs of time hands on with real and counterfeit coins. Very few seasoned pros instinctively know something is wrong on a NG coin relatively quickly even if they can't verbalize it right away. Most dealers can't tell a counterfeit to save their life despite being in the business for decades. Access to databases is also helpful of course.
Owner, Lone Mountain Coin
Rare Ingot Collector - Always on the hunt for more!
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Founder of Pre33Goldbugs - 5500 member group
Nothing quite like the quick reads (no books) when your grades pop. And then a further study (still no books) once they've arrived. But that's just my take I like books of pictures.
One other variable no one has mentioned is the value of the coin being graded. That is to say most likely a semi key or key coin will be more scrutinized and harsher graded than a more common date. So one might say there are 2 grading standards for common coins and more expensive ones with big price differences between the next grade. So how do you factor in a MS 64 FH SlQ 1926 D where the jump to 65 is huge as opposed to a MS 64 FH 1930 where the jump to 65 is minimal. Do you think they will be graded equally?
Thanks, that's basically what I've been saying. Lately I've been evaluating my coins to see if any are undergraded. If the coin looks to me to be near the top of its grade or beyond, I reference the book and see what it says about the next grade higher. Then I look back at my coin to see if it meets that criteria. In the vast majority of cases because of the description I can see why attempting an upgrade is futile because the coin does not meet the documented standard even though the terms and criteria are all subjective. Then I read the criteria for the grade it is and I can see that it matches well. The places where I struggle is in the cases where I have to ask, how did the toning affect this grade? Or the mark is severe but it's in a "good" location so it doesn't distract from the appeal so does that count? How do spots affect the assessment of appeal? Those are things that aren't really documented.
http://ProofCollection.Net
“The places where I struggle is in the cases where I have to ask, how did the toning affect this grade? Or the mark is severe but it's in a "good" location so it doesn't distract from the appeal so does that count? How do spots affect the assessment of appeal? Those are things that aren't really documented. “
That’s EXACTLY the point, because they can NOT be documented. It’s impossible to use language to describe how a decision like that is made, there are simply too many variables to take into consideration.
I understand where you’re coming from, but none of what I know was due to my geographical location. Thats why I’ve been suggesting that you should to go to coin shows, talk to graders both present and former, and I can not stress enough- SUMMER SEMINAR. Take the level two class with Feltner and McCarthy if possible, you’ll be ok.
Forgive my hyperbole when I said the written standards are “worthless”, but they’re just a starting point or basis, and the rest is experience. I know we’ve been using the term “conjecture”, but a more accurate term for this discussion would be “hearsay”. What is a book, other than written version of hearsay and experiences?
Something that really stuck with me after the lightbulb finally came on in my head: Those with vast grading experience often will say “The coin is in a 63 holder” or “It’s currently graded 53 by PCGS” instead of using absolute language such as “The coin IS a 66”. Im glad that you’re going to talk to JA, but remember that he is not the official arbiter of truth, and what would be taught by PCGS graders will differ from what is taught by a CAC grader, or an NGC grader. Honestly, my first talk with JA probably left me more confused than I was going into it, but once I acknowledged that there is no such thing as the “correct grade”, then it began to make sense.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
What is the point you’re making in this discussion, other than being devils advocate? I would echo @lonemountaincoin’s comment in response, but I’m not sure why you’re here, exactly.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Of course they can be documented. An experienced grader from a TPG can provide 5, 10, a dozen examples and say in this case, the toning was pleasing and resulted in a 1 point grade bump. On this coin, the toning wasn't quite as nice but still contributed 1/2 point. On this coin, the toning detracted from the coin and resulted in a deduction... etc... Examples and guidelines can certainly be documented and published. Then the reader can interpolate the examples into what he sees in his hands. I don't understand why nothing can be written down. Do the grading classes and summer seminar have written materials? I understand they aren't book courses and involve a lot of "lab" work but surely it's not all verbal.
Would love to. It's kind of hard to take the time off and leave the wife and family behind (they certainly won't want to come). When the opportunity arises I do plan to do things like this but it's hard to do without traveling and having a full time job.
Hearsay is inadmissible in court. Documents are admissible. Surely you can figure out why this is the case. Surely you can understand skepticism when someone makes a claim that is not backed by any official source. That doesn't mean they're wrong or making it up, but just that the claim has yet to be documented.
I was not able to call him today so I will be trying again next week. I understand what you're saying here, and I've understood that for a long time. That is why the CAC bean is so valuable because the second opinion affirms the first, but in the end they are still just opinions.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate and I slightly resent the implication. I have held the same position since my first post.
I started by trying to soften the two extremes. I seem to be ending by needing to defend my position. The kerfuffle started with too many people taking the extreme position. It was either "printed guides are the Bible" or "printed guides are worthless". Since you've now retracted "worthless", that's one less extreme position held.
Let me summarize my position:
I know. Very controversial opinion.
So out of everything I’ve ever said on this topic, you zero in one hyperbolic descriptor? You’re interpreting my comments far too literally, which coincidentally is what I’m arguing against.
Our position is far from “extreme”, but I don’t fully agree with all of your points. As LMC said, you can become an experienced grader without studying the written standards, but you can’t become one by only studying the written standards. PC recently asked if there’s any written material at summer seminar, and there isn’t. We spent no time reading the standards, though the common areas of contention are discussed thoroughly and you can take notes.
Written standards are akin price guides, it’s just a starting point but they shouldn’t be treated like gospel. Like many things in the world, there is no substitute for experience. You can study construction as much as you want, but one day on a job site working for the high school dropout foreman, who uses one cigarette to light the next cigarette, will have you questioning your entire life.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don't really disagree. In fact, you don't really disagree with me, though it's not cool to say so. But at the beginning, people were (in my opinion) being too absolute. It's really only the absolutes that I was objecting to.
I also think there's an overemphasis on the actual writing. Taking to JA is also a form of verbal communication. Looking at coins alone is also useless - which your last post sorry of acknowledges. You wouldn't know what you're looking at and since every coin is unique, it would be very hard to assign a grade to a raw coin. You wouldn't know to sure at marks, luster, strike, etc. That context came from some form of verbal communication whether that is a written guide, internet guide, grading instructor (as you mention), or an old dealer.
I terms of the top sets, I am wondering how many collections are being crossed from PCGS to CACG?
I also wonder if those coins will bring a premium.
My only coin that I crossed was an NGC, finest known Eliasberg coin that PCGS would not cross but was a CAC stickers coin.
I have to regrade a ton of coins that never have been to CAC and are in 20+ year holders.
Whats the best option? I
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
In my opinion, the best option would be to submit to CAC first and go from there. In many cases, getting a sticker would probably be at least as good as a plus grade (on an regrade) and retaining the old holder would be an additional benefit. Depending upon the results, you might want to then try some of the coins for regrade or crossover to CACG.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have material from all 3. Plus I have nice coins from all 3. As I know how to grade and pick out nice coins that retail well for me on the bourse not a player in the generalization game which TPG better / worse. However I do price my CACG at CAC money as per CDN.
Smart players learn how to grade, pickoff PQ material. Then retail, for good money if in the biz. Remember your coins that are PQ you want to price higher than avg quality material.