Lets hear it for adjectival grading!!!!!!!!!!!

Singapore

Seriously.

What possible good has come from the 70 point scale and 11 MS grades other than to create a lot of silly debate, huge windfalls for grading companies, artificially inflated pricing and, most bizarrely, competitions between otherwise sane individuals to see who can sort through the most 1998 Jefferson Nickels to identofy one that is a PCGS 69.

I believe Stacks had the right idea then, has the right idea now and eventually the market will curve back to them like some kind of wack-o numismatic boomerang when the coin world (small c, two words) contents itself that Unc., Choice Unc. and Gem Unc. are perfectly sifficient terms to describe any coin worth describing.

Thank you, thank you very much.

Julian

I totally agree. Numerical grading is OK for shorthand, but to convey the condition of an object, without a picture, a word description is critical. All serious collectors must see the coins to see if they fit into their collections. Digits do not work for collections. They may work for traders. No one else has agreed or commented in two hours. Very interesting and quite unfortunate.
!!

Clankeye

Thomas Wolfe wrote a famous book titled You Can't Go Home Again. The only way the hobby as a whole would go back to pure adjectival descriptions is if some kind of coin industry apocalypse happened. This is merely one man's opinion. But, I just can't see it.

Singapore, I'm not saying you're wrong. There is a lot to be desired in the present 11 point MS scale. I just don't think anyone's had any luck turning back the clock. In numismatics or anything else.

cladking

There's nothing wrong with fewer levels of quality, the problem is
that the grades have little meaning now except as levels of quality.
What we need are grades that are more descriptive of the condi-
tion of the coin.

Oak

I'll trade you my MS62's for your MS64's. Since they're both "Choice" it'll be a straight up trade.

Singapore

It did occur to me that posting a comment on adjectival grading in a PCGS sponsored forum was unlikely to meet with enthusiastic approval -

It was about a week ago that Trade Dollar Nut - who I do not know but believe is a very experienced and knowldegeable collector - posted asking the forum if 11 mint state grades were enough. And I think he was serious.

DHeath

Singapore,

It isn't a lack of enthusiasm for your idea. I for one agree fully that the current system is inadequate, and agree with a written description or a better scale that more closely corresponds to the way collectors grade. The current system used by the services was intended to provide a means to trade sight-unseen, and to treat coins as quantifiable commodities. The result is a net grade that attempts to establish value, and has little to do with a proper description of the attributes of the coin. If I'm looking at the coin, I don't really care what the holder says, whose holder it is, or what the seller says the grade is, and will form my own opinion. If the coin is sight unseen, I would prefer a variation of the old ANACS system, with 1 to 10 for strike, luster, wear, marks and color. Verbage would be fine if it addressed those points, and they matched the coin in the holder. Then, if those attributes were used to determine a net grade, great. Anyone who thinks they can tell the relative value of an AU58 or MS64 coin sight-unseen with no additional information will always overpay for mediocre material. IMO If the current system were foolproof, no seller would need to post a picture on the web.

Lakesammman

Hey Julian - some of us work for a living. I'm home now and responding.

If Stacks wants to be accurate, then be verbally accurate. On the few occasions they post a pic the true description should be "Gem unc. Red IHC with enough spots to make a dalmation jealous and not really red but close enough". I find their pictures and descriptions inadequate and not everyone lives on the east coast so preview of the coins is a hassle. So, to their detriment (and the consignors), 90% of the US ignores their auctions.

I think they are moving forward only on momentum and would be surprised if they are still in business at the end of my collecting career (hopefully 20 yrs, Lord willing).

jom

<< <i>posted asking the forum if 11 mint state grades were enough. And I think he was serious. >>



He was serious and in many cases we have MORE than 11 MS grades. Mercs have 22. IHC have 33 etc etc.

I've always felt that having just 4 MS grades would take a lot of pressue off the grading services and let the market decide the value of the coins...especially the "in-between" grades (and the so-called "designations", ie FB, FH, CAM etc). I think the main thing may be that people would actually be FORCED to learn to grade THEMSELVES. Not only would this help dealers who know how to grade (it would put them at an advantage) it would also get rid of all the so-called coin dealers who nothing more than looking up prices on a Grey Sheet. It will also force the collectors to really evaluate coins instead of putting all their hopes on a piece of plastic.

Will this happen? Of course it won't for the obvious reasons. I don't believe the market WANTS to learn to grade. I think it wants to put all the responsibility on the services as much as possible so they can remain blameless. The services like it because it creates windfall profits for them since they are the masters of the universe! In this litigious society we live is this really any surprise?

jom

ARCO

I wish grading would return to a simpler way of catagorizing Uncirculated coins. With the hoards of collectors clamoring for Unc. pieces, it seems highly unlikely.

I have always wondered if grading unc. pieces could be twofold; computer and man. A computer would be programmed to just identify certain marks, nicks, ticks, etc... by location and size and quantify that into a technical grade. The program parameters would have to be agreed to by the the larger numismatic body and accepted as such. OK, there are all kinds of issues that would arise, but just dream with me here!

The second aspect would be an experienced grader(s) such as we have now that take into account the coins size, strike, metal composition, eye appeal etc... and blend that grade with the technical grade, or perhaps even assign two separate grades; technical and objective.

Just think of it, man and machine working to perfect the earth's problems. It brings a tear to my eye just pondering it.

Tyler

nwcs

The problem is that a coin's state of preservation is a continuum. And with a continuum, you can't easily demarcate grades easily. So whether it's adjectival, numeric, or anything else, describing a coin is going to be messy business. Especially when the upper and lower bounds are not clearly defined.

vega1

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say I disagree completely. I find "Unc." "Choice Unc." and "Gem Unc." entirely too vague, particularly since there is no saying that any of these terms is the same for any particluar dealer or person. The last time I bought a Gem Unc coin I got screwed, when I called to say its not Gem Unc. the answer was "Yes it is." how do you argue with that? ;-) That was the last time.

I like the scale in that at least based on the body of evidence from the grading companies, I can know what to expect from a PCGS MS65 *in general* for example. Is it perfect? absolutely not, there may be argument, it may not fit my definition or anothers, but I much prefer it to a system where there is a huge difference within a single 'range' as oak pointed out.

Singapore

Vega1 -

First of all, I'm not surprised that Gem Uncs vary dealer to dealer - just as MS65s vary from slabbing company to slabbing company.

I don't having a numerical grade on a holder increases the accuracy of the grade or makes it more scientific - I think it does the opposite, as evidenced by the number of people who post in the forum complaining that their MS63 coins are actually MS64s, 65s are 66s, etc.

My biggest problem with it all is the implication that an MS65 is worth more than an MS64 is worth more than an MS63, even if the 63 is a beautiful coin and the 65 is an ugly, blotchy mess.

Numerical grading considers only surface imperfections, adjectival grading considers all attributes - and since I believe all attributes determine value and desirability, I prefer the adjectival description.

agfox

<< <i>Numerical grading considers only surface imperfections >>



Last I heard eye appeal plays a part in grading. And probably 75% of the time a 65 Morgan will be more appealing than a 64. While 11 may not be perfect, it's much better than 3.

Singapore

Silver Fox -

If 11 is better than 3, is 12 better than 11?

agfox

A valid question I suppose. If you would like a 67.5 or so I guess you could plug it in. But the jest of my point is there is such a wide range from 60 to 70, that I personally don't believe that 3 grades can do justice.

Can you not tell the difference between a 62 and 64 morgan? I'd say about 85% of the time I could and with 3 grades they would be lumped together. So would a 65 and 67 which again are fairly accurately determined. Also, the 11 grades are necessary for internet trading where you cannot always view the coins in your hand. If you would buy a coin sight unseen with just 3 grading choices, so be it, but I'll take the current system with better results I'm certain.

Singapore

AgFox -

I agree with you with respect to Morgans and Barber Halves and things like that. For these series I believe PCGS or NGC do a creditable job and the numerical system seems to work reasonably well.

For early copper and early type and colonials the numeric system works poorly in my opinion as the vagaries of strike and color and wear and defects and planchet quality and adjustment marks and all that can often result in a coin with more technical wear being more attractive, desireable and valuable than a 'mint state' coin.

agfox

I'm glad we can partially agree.

I don't currently collect old copper so can't comment other than the fact I know there are several different folks that grade them several different ways. Certainly those would need a more knowledgable collector that the relatively easy Morgan series.