Could you live with MS60/ MS63/ MS65 and MS67?

braddick · February 2, 2003 11:05AM

What if we corrected the current status of Mint State grading with it's eleven different levels and simply went back to:

1- Commercial Unc- MS60. Bag marks, hits, possibly weak strike, lackluster, but not damaged.

2- Choice Uncirculated (MS63). Fewer marks, especially in the focal areas (ie: cheek of Liberty on the Morgan) with average to above average luster and appeal.

3- Gem Uncirculated (MS65): Minimal marks with a full strike (for the series/date. For example a 1926-S Buffalo wouldn't need a full split tail like you'de see on a 1938-D) It would also posess full to above average luster.

4- Superb Gem Uncirculated (MS67)- A tic or two but does not detract from the overall beauty of the coin. A real dazzler! Wonderful Eye Appeal and a show stopper. (Make up your adjectives here: it's a coin that when you see it, you know it's SUPERB!)

That's it. No need for MS61, MS62 or that inbetween grade of MS64. MS66? No- who needs it?

Collectors will realize that GRADE does NOT equal PRICE, it is only a part of the equation. Other collectible factors also play a role (Premium Quality toning would be an example or amazing blast white swirling luster).

I know this will never happen- but if it did, could you live with it?

clw54 · February 2, 2003 11:11AM

I think most collectors could live with it just fine.

Bear · February 2, 2003 11:11AM

Braddick -I agree with your conceipt in part. I have always considered the MS 61 &62 to be high end

quality MS 60 coins. Also the MS 64 to be a high end 63 coin. The difference would be

compensated by price rather then a numerical grade. As for the MS68,69 & 70 I believe that

they serve a valuable service with the enormous prices at those lofty levels. The same opinion

would apply for Proof coins as well as Mint State .

Donny · February 2, 2003 11:11AM

Seems to me that's the way it was before the advent of the grading services.

nwcs · February 2, 2003 11:16AM

I don't think I can live with it because internally I'd be forced to mentally figure out the differences in what we'd call now a 61, 62, 66, 68, 69. I think that it would create more confusion because it would become harder to compare coins with the same grade but with very different looks without a lot of experience. I think you'd also find all the same buyers who would say a 64 coin is 63 and sell it at 65. It's a 64, so one could swing it either way. I think it creates the same problems as now but looking differently.

Ultimately, what's needed is a new way to evaluate coins. I don't know what it would look like. But the guy who came up with the scale did it for one series to make it easier. Why can't someone else take a completely different approach and not even use numbers? Surely there is another way to evaluate a coin's merits? Something repeatable and describable?

Neil

airplanenut · February 2, 2003 11:18AM

<begin voice of paranoid wife of Reverand Lovejoy>
Won't somebody think of the registry? Oh won't somebody PLEASE think of the registry!
<end voice of paranoid wife of Reverand Lovejoy>

Jeremy

agfox · February 2, 2003 11:21AM

It's always been 60-70.. Even if it was never written down. That's what I just don't get about this arguement. You can tell a difference in a coin in 66 and 67, and from 63,64, and 65 for that matter. Even if the old timers never wrote down the grade 62, I think they were thinking that. "It's not quite 63, but it's a lot better than 60."

FC57Coins · February 2, 2003 11:25AM

I think if anything we'll eventually move the opposite way and perhaps even start seeing some sort of grading brokendown even further. When you look at the price differential between some MS64's and MS65's, the collector would be the one coming out on the short end of the stick. In the Franklin series, where the price differential between an MS64FBL, MS65FBL and MS66FBL can be substancial, you would wind up causing more confusion than solving problems. I'm sure many other series are in the same boat with certain key coins. I think that if something like this were to happen, you'd see too many MS62's in 63 holders, 64's in 65 holders and so on - you get the picture. Let's leave well enough alone - can you imagine the arguments on this board if we were to tinker with our already broken system?? OY VEY!!!

Frank

Askari · February 2, 2003 11:28AM

<< <i>Could you live with MS60/ MS63/ MS65 and MS67? >>

In a heartbeat!!

RYK · February 2, 2003 11:30AM

Absolutely!!!

fcloud · February 2, 2003 11:39AM

It seem to me that this is a 64.666667 question! lol

roadrunner · February 2, 2003 11:45AM

Grading was like that in the 1978-1986 era. Grades of 60++ or 63++ were just other ways of decribing just miss coins. The same problems existed then as they do today. One person's 63++ might have only been your 63 and so forth. Those days are gone forever.

Grading and pricing is on a continuum regardless of the slabbed grade. It was that way before 1986 and will be that way for the forseeable future.

roadrunner

CLASSICS · February 2, 2003 12:06PM

seems it would be a lot more simple

i remember the days when a coin was unc. or it wasnt. vg, fine, xf, au, and unc.....

of course as far as the unc. goes, one could tell that some unc. coins where much better than others.....but what happened was everbody now claimed thier coins where the better unc. a lot of folks got stuck with the so-called better unc. coins. as time passed the confused became more confused.....seems no one could make up thier minds what was the better coin........come 1985 1986, the slabs came into our world, so dealers could trade between themselves knowing just what they would get... they used the sheldon grading system ms 1 to ms 70.... but even today people will disagree with certain grades in the slabs.........you know.......they are tight in thier grading this month, and loose in that month.... it has helped. but. i repeat, but, it almost seems like the old days, just read what people are still saying.....this looks better than a ms60 it looks ms65 to me....... oh no they graded it a ms64...lets crack it out and try and get a ms66.....you see...deep down inside its the same old song.... just the music has adiffrent beat

rkfish · February 2, 2003 12:06PM

YES!

truthteller · February 2, 2003 12:15PM

I would love to see the coins go back to UNC(BU), Choice and Gem. And the prices would be more guesswork again rather than electronic trading. But it's definitely asking too much. The powers that be control the money, so they control the hobby.

TRUTH

michael · February 2, 2003 12:16PM

a good thought but for me

if it aint broke dont fix it!

i like the 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

grades as even with these grades there are grades within the grades

like a really super nice 64 or a just made it 64 that should really be in a 63 holder!
and withnin my speciality i can tell this! this helps with pricing

for me a 64 is really nicer than a 63 and a 64 is a miss 65............ a 65 is a solid gem coin also for example in the seated proof coins for the most part a proof 63 is has some sort of problem lack of eye appeal or is heavely hairlined marked up i am sure some 63 proof seated coins are not but these are the rare exception and proof 62/61 coins for the most part are ugly pigs!

and a 67 is really super clean and with exceptionAL MINT LUSTRE or flash and little hairlines to no hairlines for a proof

a 68 is just well a super special coin with that right eye appeal i guess you have to see it to experience it or for exMPLE in the proof barber coins in 68 they are hairline free! and basically a coin from a new fresh die where the fileds meet the devices at a 90 degree angle if your proof bsrber in 68 doesnot have these qualities then it is not a real 68

for me and i guess there might be a super rare esception but any coins pre 1950

i cant see in a 69 holdrer and i do not believe in any 70 coins whatsoever modern or otherwise

again if it aint broke dont fix it

sincerely michael

onlyroosies · February 2, 2003 12:24PM

A super rare exception.... Keep the 68 and 69.

Draco · February 2, 2003 12:29PM

I could live with it. I try to get at least 60 in most classic coins so long as I can afford it. However, Many of the 60-63 coins I see are just plain ugly due to bag marks, scratches, hits or whatever you want to call it. I pass on lots of stuff that I'd like to have because of this and I also pass on tarnished/toned pieces because IMHO, it takes away from the beauty of the coins design and it certainly isn't how it looked when it came off the press (I now have my flame suite on). The worst part of it is the incredible price jump some coins have for one little grade point. It's incredibly frustrating and pure insanity to me and the reason I don't own any 70s.

Fairlaneman · February 2, 2003 12:49PM

As long as All of my 64's are bumped to 65 and not down graded to 63.

Actually I believe a person that specializes in a certain series has no problem with how the grade system is now. For a person that just plain collects everything the 60, 63, 65, 67 system would probably be of advantage because he really does not just look at one type of coin but all coins and needs a more general grading terminoligy to go by.

Probably if the grades reverted back as you stated more abuse would be present again, not that abuse is not present now.

Ken

prooflike · February 2, 2003 1:00PM

I couldn't deal with it

DennisH · February 2, 2003 2:12PM

I would not be willing to use a smaller MS grade scale.

My collecting interest is pretty much limited to Morgan dollars, so my comments apply to that series only. Here goes:

I'd actually like to see MORE mint state grades than just 60-70.

This is due to the massive range of quality that regularly exists within single grade point. Take MS64 for instance... some look like ho-hum 63s, while others look like lock 65s. Calling them all 64s is a joke. Would a system of differentating them be so out of line? Like say, 64-, 64, and 64+?

Isn't this basically what NGC's * designation is all about?

Yes, the marketplace already takes care of that by itself... quality tends to find its proper place on the value scale. But since the question posed in this thread was hypothetical, pholosophical, and "what if", I thought I'd give an opinion with a similarly hypothetical spin.

braddick · February 2, 2003 2:17PM

"Isn't that what the NGC * is all about"?

Well, actually, no. If you read their website and speak with other graders it is quickly realized that the NGC 'STAR' is designed to award coins based on Eye Appeal, not grade.

It's a tough concept to understand, but even a MS64- (barely made it MS64) can be given the NGC * .

braddick · February 2, 2003 2:23PM

DennisH: Just to clarify- because yours is an excellent point- I link this topic from the NGC "Ask NGC" forum.
You have to weed through the general question, but the reply given by NGC's finalizer is revealing in regards to the distinction between the 'STAR' and "PQ" ("just missed the next grade up"):
http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=questions&Number=101700&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

clackamas · February 2, 2003 3:49PM

Considering how PCGS grades Wheat Lincoln's that is what we have now. Nothing hight than 67 and to make a 67 the coin has to be near MS70.

dorkkarl · February 2, 2003 6:49PM

braddick, how dare you suggest something that makes sense???

if we did that, people would have to learn to do some of their own thinking!

i've suggested the same idea, & also to remove frivolous grades, such as vf-25, au-53, g-6. i mean, when i see a bar-copper graded vf-25, or a mass silver graded au-53, it makes me sick. WHAT criteria differentiates a new jersey from vf-30 to vf-35? it's an absurd notion that such "accuracy" is possible, or even desired. but i guess it's an even sadder commentary that plastic-lovers fall for such stupidity.

K S

kranky · February 2, 2003 7:40PM

I think we'd all be better off going back to fewer MS grades. Not that it will ever happen.

I respectfully point out to those who say you can tell the difference between 11 MS grades that if it were so, there would be no such thing as crackouts. Oh, it's possible that the experts at the slabbing companies might misfire every once in a while, but it's apparent to me that it's not a rare event for a coin to receive different grades on different submissions. Actually, if it were possible to determine with confidence which of 11 MS grades a coin is, we wouldn't submit coins to be graded because we'd know what the grade was.

There would be a lot less wailing about grades if there were fewer MS grades. I say 63, you say high-end 63. OK, slight difference of opinion. But if there's a 10x price difference between 63 and 64, we are going to fight tooth and nail for that one-point difference. We conveniently ignore that a slabbed 64 might come back in a 63 holder if resubmitted.

The worst thing that could happen is to have even MORE distinctions between grades. If that happened, price manipulation would run rampant. If my Standing Liberty quarter is an MS63FH + Full Shield, is that worth more than an MS64 Full Shield but only 80% FH? The more qualifiers used in the grade, the greater the likelihood that you'll never know what you should be paying.

DHeath · February 2, 2003 8:13PM

I'd settle for a 1 to 10 that described what the coin looked like.

One could be truly ugly, and 10 could be unimaginably beautiful. The trouble with the system as it exists is that market grade/ technical grade / net grade MS64 means very little sight-unseen. If you buy one, you'll have absolutely no idea what the coin looks like until you get it.

Gilbert · February 2, 2003 11:05PM

I wouldn't want to see such a limitation. IMO, the difference in appearance between my concept of a MS60 and a MS63 entails too many variables for the intended purpose of coin grading - to describe the state of preservation. Don't get me wrong; I know Sheldon's purpose was to assign value(s) based on the details and current 3rd party grading is market tailored, but I just don't see what the problem is assigning grades based on the technical merits and leave the monetary value to the individuals who are selling/buying the coin(s).

nwcs · February 2, 2003 11:20PM

Interesting points to ponder:

1. How would reducing the number of grades help or hurt a coin newbie who just stepped into the hobby?
2. How would it help/hurt an experienced coin person?
3. How would it help/hurt those who enjoy coins, but aren't interested in learning every nuance?

Barry · February 2, 2003 11:32PM

<< <i>I know this will never happen- but if it did, could you live with it? >>

Absolutely. I feel the premium that some coins carry for one point difference is absurd. However, that's what the market has determines.

You're right it will never happen, as many plastic collectors subdivide each of the MS grades into "PQ for the grade," etc. The grading services love it, as it generates almost endless business for them with folks playing the crackout game, when, in reality, there are a finite number of coins to grade.

cladking · February 2, 2003 11:34PM

The fundamental question is why do we grade coins. When you get right down to it
there is no other reason to even grade them than to give an idea of the coin's condition
to someone who isn't able to look at it to see for himself. If coins were made uniformly
then very few grades would suffice to indicate condition, but they are not. They are as
individual as fingerprints, they vary in quality against an entire spectrum of criteria. Four
grades might well be enough if each of these criteria were graded.

This apparently frightens most collectors. Suddenly it would require some expertise to
even look up the value of a coin, so instead we send the coin to the handful of people
who do know how to "grade" them so they're easy to look up in the price guide. Then
they complain that the grade is wrong as the market changes.

When I have a coin in my hand I really don't care how many grades there are since I can
see it's condition. After all, it has only one grade!!!

Askari · February 3, 2003 9:31AM

I agree, Cladking, but one of the problems with our sliced & diced Sheldon scale is that it only covers one aspect of condition anyway -- wear (or lack thereof). Quality of strike isn't (technically) a factor, nor is the attractiveness of toning ... or design, for that matter.

Lakesammman · February 3, 2003 9:39AM

There's a big difference between 63-64-65-66-67 - you can do away with the remainder of the scale as far as I'm concerned.

toothpuller · February 3, 2003 10:04AM

I heartly agree with Lakesammman on this one.

For example, I have two 1906 MS Indian Head Cents. The first is a MS65RD photosealed by Rick Snow [which generally means it is PQ for the grade]. It is a very nice coin. I also have a MS66RD. The 66 has a stronger strike and the fields jump out with luster and satiny smoothness. It is a better coin even to the naked eye. There is definitely a perceptible difference between these two coins and a tenfold difference in dollar value to the MS IHC collector.

kranky · February 3, 2003 10:44AM

toothpuller, I hope you don't mind if I follow up with the example you gave. Let's say that there is a 1 in 5 chance that your photosealed 65RD upgrades to a 66 - and after a few crackouts, it eventually does make 66RD. (I don't think that's stretching things - in the grading class I took which was taught by current and former NGC graders, many coins were deemed to be something like "this is a 65, but 2 out of 10 times it would come back a 66"). Your other 66RD is clearly a better coin. Now we have two coins in the same grade, but one is clearly better.

The 65RD was a liner coin but eventually made it into a 66RD holder, yet is not the equal of your other 66RD. Having the one-point scale didn't solve anything in that case. The difference between a low-end 63 and a high-end 64 is nearly two points, but they will won't be priced one grade apart. A seller will want 63 money for the just-made-it 63 (because as we all know, there are no low-end coins for sale

), and will want 64.7 money for the high-end 64. Using the one-point system didn't solve that one either.

ANACONDA · February 3, 2003 10:53AM

"Could you live with MS60/ MS63/ MS65 and MS67?"

No, I would have to kill myself.

Well, maybe i wouldn't have to do that. Quite frankly, we need more grades but what we need more is a better grading methodology.

toothpuller · February 3, 2003 11:20AM

Kranky, PCGS has not made a new 1906 MS66RD in years, but that I know is not the gist of your argument. If the 65 is to be upgraded, yet is not as nice as the 66, you seem to be making the point that we need an additional grade between the 65 and the 66 to differentiate the two coins, not the less grades as in the thread topic.

Obviously we all know this reaches a point of silliness and would become nothing more than an additional source of income for the grading services. The one point system is not perfect with liner coins, but there will always be liner coins no matter what grading system is used. It's just a matter of determining how many graduations are reasonable to the collecting public and current system is presently accepted as reasonable.

The money paid, not the grade [sounds like Johnny Cochran] eventually determines the coins value anyway.

jom · February 3, 2003 12:43PM

<< <i>we need more grades but what we need more is a better grading methodology. >>

More grades? God help us. Some series have 30 (!) MS grades...do we really need MORE?

What we NEED is more educated collectors. Then we wouldn't need grading services at all. Then we could go back to basics and use Braddick's proposed set up: 60,63,65,67 and pay the premuim for the PQ coin (ie the in-betweens).

jom

michael · February 3, 2003 3:54PM

lakessamm sums it up really very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! doe me a 68 coin is well a coin with monster look and eye appeal and depending on the series of coin this has different standards

"""""69 and 70 grades are ga-ga grades""""" to me meaning stay far away..................................

a certain major grading services founder termed that phrase 69 and 70 back in the mid 1990's? and i totally agree with it one of the best phrases i have EVER heard in the coin game!

but within the last 3 or 4 years or so 69 and 70 mania has taken over and become so profitable for some that the term has fallen out of favor

i can see 69 grades for post 1950 coins but 70 for me is something that should NOT be put on holders

sincerely michael

Could you live with MS60/ MS63/ MS65 and MS67?

Comments

Leave a Comment