Answer to the Grading Problem - 60,63,65,67,70

Typetone

Plently of related threads are talking about the problem of overgraded/undergraded coins. Here is my simple and oft-repeated solution. Start using just five grades 60,63,65,67, and 70. That would eliminate all the questions about the fine line between grades. With only 5 unc. grades, most coins would be classified correctly. Then let the collectors and dealers work out which are the premium coins and which are the lower quality ones and price them accordingly. Part of the issue is the huge jumps due to a grade change. If a coin goes from $500 to $5,000 when it regrades up one grade, something is wrong. It is still the same coin after all. There should already be much more differential pricing within a grade. My proposal will assure that there are very few grade jumps, and would force all participants to buy and pay for the coin and not the holder.

Greg

jom

Type: I agree to a point but you have to remember that the price jumps could possibly get LARGER. On the other hand it sure would relieve a lot of pressure from the grading services to be so "precise". I also think it would be good because then coins would trade for the market value for the in-between grades (ie MS64).

jom

dweeberlord

I really like that idea.

anoldgoat

That sure would force collecters to learn to grade, me for one. The grade spreads would probably not change a lot, but if you're off a grade... opps.

mike

JJacks

That would probably work for a while, but then would drift back as one of the grading services would attempt to "trump" the other service by "Now Offering 10 MS grades....". It would be like going back to the old days of BU and Gem BU. It would work for some, but others would say "My MS63 is clearly better then yours", etc.

JJacks

fcloud

I think it makes the problem bigger. There are 'tweeners now, and by making the range larger, people are going to want more accurate grades and more accurately described coins. Can you imagine MS 60 but almost 63, with one less small nick this 65 should be a 67, and so on. And what about all those 69 graded coins--now they are 67? Maybe we should get rid of Cam, Dcam, Full Steps, Full Bands, Full Horn for VF Buffalos, FBL, etc, etc..... Maybe even we should just have circulated and uncirculated, proof and impared proof.

jom

<< <i>Maybe we should get rid of Cam, Dcam, Full Steps, Full Bands, Full Horn for VF Buffalos, FBL, etc, etc..... Maybe even we should just have circulated and uncirculated, proof and impared proof. >>



Sounds good to me.



<< <i>Can you imagine MS 60 but almost 63, with one less small nick this 65 should be a 67, and so on. >>



Yeah, and maybe collectors will stop paying HUGE price differences for SMALL differences in grade. Especially when the QUALITY is not all that much different such as the "one less tick" you mentioned.

jom

fcloud

I'll take all the MS70 and PR70 coins there are at MS60 and PR60 prices!

CLASSICS

heck, i remember when there was only b.u..or unc... yet some coins stood out amoung others. so the market demanded someone take notice of this...so we had choice bu.......that wasnt enough because some looked better than choice bu.......so we had gem bu.... the only problem was everyone thought thier coins were gem bu. a lot of folks ended up with bu instead of the gems....it all got out of hand. david hall came up with the idea of slabing and putting a number grade on them, this helped to take some of the confusion out of the grading game........its not perfect, but it did help.... so we had ms60 ...ms63....ms65.....but! some were not happy with that, no they wanted to really get down with the numbers, some claimed there were coins between ms60 an ms63, so here comes ms61 an ms62 and so on.......now we here , they are tight, but they use to be lose.....oh no, back then they were lose now they are tight........ms65 should upgrade to a ms66...was a ms65 cracked out resumitted came back a ms64........kind of sounds like the old days doesnt it.........its the same old song, its just the music has gotten louder....................ms60...ms63...ms65.....and ms67 for those truely outstanding coins.........dump the others .......and make it more simple.

kranky

I agree that it would solve the grading problem. Unfortunately, if I ran a grading service that's the last thing I'd do, but since I don't run one I think it's a great idea!



<< <i>If a coin goes from $500 to $5,000 when it regrades up one grade, something is wrong. >>



Agreed! I know people say that you'd still have a $500 MS65 coin and a $5,000 MS65 coin (the ones which would be just-missed 67s), but that's OK. You'd definitely have people buying the coin and not the holder, and the people who are comfortable paying 10x for a PQ would know what they are getting into.

But what will happen instead is the services will find even more reasons to split hairs. Every time a new designation is offered, you will get a tons of resubmissions to see if the coin qualifies, because every designation automatically brings more money when sold. FH, FBL, FS, CAM, etc. all equal more money for the seller and more money for the service.

ANACONDA

Clearly incorrect, in my opinion. And in fact, less grades means more problems, not less, again in my opinion.

The answer to the grading problem is replicability - the ability to asign grades in a way that is repeatable. You give it a 66 today, it gets a
66 down the road.

The only way to do that is through multiple graders assigning grades totally independantly of each other and then averaging the grades.
Grading to one decimal place is ideal in my opinion. The more graders, the more accurate the grading.

It's how many other subjective things are evaluated. Figure skating, gymnastics, etc.
Not everyone will agree with me but then again, it took us 200 years to figure out we needed third party grading.

When someone else comes out with grading as i've described it, all other methods, especially consensus grading, will go away.

adrian

kranky

Anaconda, it is downright impossible to have single-point MS grading along with repeatability. Not possible. I know we'd like it to be possible, but it is beyond what humans can do.

It would be no different for figure skating or gymnastics, except they don't make a different team of judges watch videotapes and see if the same exact score is assigned. That's the equivalent of resubmissions.

ANACONDA

I agree, you're not going to get precise replicability. While that would be an admirable goal, getting within a half point on a fairly consistent basis is not only possible, it is probable in my opinion.

That beats having a shot 66, as determined by David Hall, a guy most people believe is a good grader.....coming back to you in a 64 holder .....$100 later.

CLASSICS

adrian, i remenber when someone came out with a slab grading ms64.5 ms65 .5 i cant remember just who it was, i saw them at one of the ana shows......they lasted about 2 weeks........nobody on this planet can grade a coin that way....remember computer grading? dont see it around either do you. who programed the computer? ms60 ms61 ms62 ms63 ms64 ms65 ms66 ms67 ms68 ms69 ms70, sounds like a bingo game down at the pool hall......

Fairlaneman

Contract the Grading responsibility out to certain Nationally known specialists within a given series. These folks know thier coins and the chararteristics of thier given series. Do PCGS,NGC or any other mass graders know all of the series and what to really look for within a certain series. I really do not think they do. If this was done no numerical changes would be needed. I know "Dream World" again.

Ken

parkave

Classics, that was Compugrade. Utilizing a computer to grade the coins. I laughed when I saw that for the first time. The MS60.1-MS69.9 scale didnt exactly pan out. Since grading is an art and not an exact science we must leave it in the hands of those who are paid for their skills and paid well! Seasoned veterans can remember the good old days of BU, Choice BU, Select BU, Gem BU etc, where you paid premiums for nice eye appeal coins. Sometime I wish that was the order of the day.

The Sheldon numerical scale is as good as it gets and let's give credit where credit is due. David Hall, John Albanese, Mark Salzberg, the pioneers of "accurate" grading services deserve a thumbs up. The grading risks have certainly been minmized at best.

oreville

At one time after all the slabbing companies were in business all we really had were 55, 60,63,65,67 and all of the other grades were minor grades. They did not count as full 1/2 step between a 65 and 67 for instance in the case of the 66 grade.

But as time went on the minor grades became more important and I believe they are essential to act as a PQ or negative qualifier on a major grade.

The real bottom line is for the grade service to cut back on their grading based on market value and get back to grading based in technical and eye appeal merits.

The grading services tightening the grades are only going to cause a major rise in slabbed coins prices in many cases. Could be harmful if too sudden and too much.

ANACONDA

" adrian, i remenber when someone came out with a slab grading ms64.5 ms65 .5 i cant remember just who it was, i saw them at one of the ana shows......they lasted about 2 weeks......."

Grading to the tenth of a point isn't the key to replicability.

Replicability is the key but you get there with more graders rendering objective opinions which are averaged.

Talk to a guy who is an expert in probabilities and statistics. Give him the basic scenario and ask him to tell you what system will produce the most replicable results.

adrian

crito

Maybe graders should sign the slab. That way I'd know whose bias I'm running into. You'd be able to say "Oh, that one was graded by Joe, he thinks all monster toned coins are AT and beats them down" or "Mike graded this coin, he thinks all 50 year old white coins are overdipped and slaughters them". I don't see any benefit to more or fewer grades, at this point. Fewer, and pricing becomes (even more) impossible. More, and any hope of consistency on resubmissions goes out the window. Might as well use just one grader IMO. Might even let submitters choose their grader!. Pick the guy who likes toning for the monsters, pick the guy who likes white for the blazers. Buyers of that type of material will likely have the same bias, so everyone's happy with the result.

satootoko

I propose a very simple, 9 step system, using grade names instead of numbers.

1 Crap = cull
2 Junk = barely recognizable type
3 Lousy = barely discernable date - doesn't require all digits if what's there is definitive
4 Poor = most design characteristics discernable
5 Fair = it's all sort of there
6 Good = lightly worn
7 Excellent = nearly uncirculated
8 Super-Duper = nearly uncirculated with luster
9 WOW = Self explanatory

Cam40

So all MS coins are Ws?

Maybe we need a separate grade for each attribute.One for strike,then luster,and contact marks / wear,maybe even
an eye-appeal `eagle-eye`(Thats been done I think) designator.
Not everyone knows the formula used in determining the grade(professionally)
Without finding that formula in my library someone here I,m sure can resite it verbatum for us all I,ll bet.

If not..I,ll find it and post it in awhile.

Cam40

Contract the Grading responsibility out to certain Nationally known specialists within a given series. These folks know thier coins and the chararteristics of thier given series

Thats a pretty good idea.I like it.

ANACONDA

We grade girls on the decimal system, isn't that good enough for coins? Let's not complicate it with strike, luster etc.

Cam40

Girls?
lol
Apples and Oranges dude

cladking

<< <i>Girls?
lol
Apples and Oranges dude >>



Condition, age, AT, expense(cost), beauty, cladding, provenance, orientation, ring,
bust, pedigree, eye appeal, wear, gemmy, and pristine. Jeesh, were we talking about
apples or oranges?

Cam40

uh...hehe.I dont know.
I just wanna know what this new bic.nic.is going to look like.

eminem

Forward ever, backwards never!! It applies to the money you make when changing jobs and also , now, to going back to previous grading standards. Whats done is done.

Singapore

I agree with Typetone's premise -

I actually posted a while ago that we should back to unc., choice unc. and gem unc., but I'd settle for 60, 63, 65, 67 and 70.

With all due respect to Adrian, there is simply no way that anybody can consistently split hairs and grade 11 different mint state grades over a period of time, in different places, with different individuals doing the grading, etc., and do it with any consistency. Frankly, I think its absurd to think that its possible, let alone probable.

What it causes (and why the grading services will never go to that approach) is the 'long lines of dealers waiting to turn that PQ66 into a shiny new 67 so they can cross it over at NGC to 68' ad nauseum. Please people, take a step back and look at the absurdity of this process.

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted in here a day or two ago about some beautiful Roosevelt dimes they had just purchased back after owning them sometime before and now all were in shiny new holders a point or two higher than they had been. Am I the only who thinks PT Barnum is somewhere chomping on a large cigar with huge smirk on his face (I have no idea if Barnum was a smoker - I sort of picture him that way though).

As I said, NGC or PCGS will never go this route - but maybe a new service could. My breath - I am not holding it.

ah

This would make it a lot simpler for me, a newbie to US coin collecting.
There is such a wide grading range, that I hear (from this forum) is aggravating to
seasoned collectors.

Bear

Coins are hard to understand, girls will always be impossible to understand.

Dont tell Mrs Bear what I just said, its our secret.

relayer

Remember BU, CHOICE BU AND GEM BU?

What about a 63 that isn't quite a 65? Maybe that could be a 64

dorkkarl

totally agree w/ the idea. also, get rid of the frivolous grades like vf-25, vf-35, f-15. pcgs & ngc are just not that accurate, nor is coin grading supposed to be.

& no more idiotic "stars"!

K S

LucyBop

<< <i>girls will always be impossible to understand. >>



No one will ever understand the HepKitty. Ever!

CYBERKEN

"That would eliminate all the questions about the fine line between grades. With only 5 unc. grades, most coins would be classified correctly."

So, was that the case during the 'craze' of 1979/1980?...

CYBERKEN

"I agree that it would solve the grading problem."

When that standard prevailed, it WAS the "grading problem". The "grading problem" is more accurately described as a "market".

The seller, be it a dealer or not, is NEVER a disinterested person in the argument. I know the services are fulfilling their original purpose when we see long threads started by dealers who are whining about them...

CYBERKEN

"You'd definitely have people buying the coin and not the holder"

Of course, you'd ALSO have a lot fewer people buying ANYTHING...

CYBERKEN

I really DO like the idea of one, or even two, digits to the right of the decimal. And I believe we will see that from the services eventually...

RegistryCoin

<< <i>Grading to one decimal place is ideal in my opinion. >>



Gotta go with Adrian here. This would be ideal.
Going to less grades invites much more unscrupulous activity.
Off-grading, most often overgrading previous to slabbing ranged one or two,maybe three grades. Now with slabs, overgrading is usually limited to just one grade. It would be ideal to keep off-grades to about one half of one grade.
I think a 60,63,65,67,70 scale would invite a much larger range of off-grading, perhaps three to four points.
Although grading to one decimal place is unlikely, I think it represents the right direction.

gemtone65

A system very much like this proposal used introduced by ANACS when certified grading was first begun, pre-slabs. It failed. MS60 was largely irrelevant, MS70 was never used, and getting MS67, ell, I suspect you needed a good friend in the grading room. I had several amazing type coins graded as MS63. The range of quality within a grade simply makes the assigned grade meaningless. Let's move forward, not backward.