Should there be a change in the grading system?

dan1ecu

Do you think it would be a good idea for grading services to use pluses and minuses to indicate if a coin is high-end or marginal for the grade, respectively? A coin that’s just a small tic mark away from an MS66 would be given an MS65+, while one that just makes a 65 would get an MS65-. An average coin for the grade would get just the number without a plus or minus.

This could generate quite a bit of business for the grading companies. Many people, I think, would try for upgrades. It would probably be easier to go from an MS65 to an MS65+ than it would be to cross from MS65 to MS66.

What do you think?

Dan

mbbiker

I don't think it would work because people don't always trust the grade on the slab now. If the grading companies had to grade even stricter they would mess up even more. Just my 2cents worth

Bustman

I agree with mbbiker.
It would be hard to convince people that the services could grade to within a half point accurately, when most do not fully trust whole point grading.

airplanenut

For a lot of grades, it either IS or ISN"T... if it is close you can call it PQ and let the buyer decide

AGC's system, however, should be changed.

dorkkarl

the official ana grading standards specifically prohibit use of the + & - , which is why ngc using the freaking star designation is so ludicrous. it's the same as putting a "+" on the grade, yet they are the official grading company of the ana. go figure.

i think a better use of an additional qualifier would be "?"

K S

FC57Coins

In a way NGC is already doing this with their * system. Has it made a difference? Somewhat I think for those who have coins in those slabs. However, there's a more basic question here. WHAT are you going to add plusses and minuses to? We all agree that there can and usually are differences between MS65's from PCGS, NGC, and ANACS - and let's not even start talking about the lesser services. So, before we even get to considering a +/- system, we'd have to consider a unified grading criteria where we could be fairly certain of a grade regardless of who issues it. Unfortunately I don't see this happen in our lifetimes, simply because of the competition among the grading services. If one grading standard existed for all companies what would differentiate one from the other? Customer service? What a horrible thought!

Frank

nwcs

A new system would be good, but it needs to be a different system than the numerical one. What it should be, I don't know. It needs to be something that weighs the needs of dealers and collectors and leaves room open for coin attributes that just don't fit well into a strict numerical grade.

dorkkarl

like i said, instead of using the "*", they should stamp a "?" after every grade.

K S

heavycopper

I've read the grading companies will grade a coin MS64A or 64B or 64C for high average and low for the grade in house. Then you never see this on the holder. Grading goes back to the buyer and seller every time a coin changes hands. It is hard to agree on an exact grade on a coin everytime.

dorkkarl

the nature of this question leaves much to be desired. i suspect the full question is really:



<< <i>Should there be a change in the grading system to make it more accurate? >>

(my addition underlined)

if that is the real question, the answer is "NO", because the question of "accuracy" is a moot point. time and again, it comes back to a very simple underlying principle that GRADING IS AN ART and reflects the grader's OPINION. you cannot fine-tune something subjective.

ngc's addition of the "star" is bogus from this standpoint, becuase accoriding to their ad's it is to denote a coin w/ "superior eye-appeal". but again, that is 100% SUBJECTIVE. what has more eye-appeal to you may have zero eye-appeal to the nameless, faceless anonymous fellas at ngc.

no matter what, regardles of what gimmicks slabing companies come up with, GRADING WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECTIVE, so by definition, it cannot be "fine-tuned" to greater accuracy.

it would be different if the addition of the "Star" represented, for example, 100% lack of bagmarks, or 100% fully struck, or something that could be indisputably measured.

K S

shirohniichan

Yes, they should go back to fewer MS grades. How about just MS-60, MS-63, MS-65, and MS-67+ (BU, Choice BU, Gem BU, and Superior Gem BU)?

dorkkarl

your right - i was really trying to say the number of grades should NOT be increased, & adding +/- would triple then number of potential grades. decreasing the number of grades? tough question.

K S

nwcs

Whatever is used, it needs to be standardized and adhered to. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing either more grades or perhaps grades on different attributes. Such as luster, surface quality, and wear (where appropriate).

shirohniichan

The MS-61 and MS-62 grades seem interchangable. I find it funny that some will pay more for an ugly MS-62 than a nice MS-61, even though they're both former AU-58's. We should either go back to calling them AU-58 by technical grading or just "BU" by market grading.

dorkkarl

well, the ideal would be technical grading, but unfortunately, it is much more difficult to market.

K S

nwcs

But how would account for enough stuff in technical grading? Like a strike through or lamination. Those were as-minted so technically how would they be addressed?

dorkkarl

that was discussed in a prev. thread, sorry i can't find it right now. anyone else have it? but the point is that at the very least, in theory, technical grading could be accomplished given a specific formula & robots/computers left to carry it out impartially. the problem that arises is that the list of rules would be so voluminous as to be impossible to carry out in a practical amount of time, & it would require relative comparisons, ie. each & every single coin of the thousands of billions in existence would have to be compared to each & every other coin in existence (or at least some large representative populatin thereof) to establish the initial rules.

like i was saying, tech. grading would by ideal but is really not practical.

K S

nwcs

Yeah, probably idea. Of course, back in the old days there were only a few grades and prices were much lower.... Hmmm...

dorkkarl

the amazing thing is that norweb used only 3 grades, "circulated", "uncirculated", and "proof", yet she still managed to assemble 1 heckuva nice collection. today, we have "registry sets". go figure.

K S