How would YOU ensure consistency if you were in charge of a grading service?
dan1ecu
Posts: 1,573
With a high volume of coins and several different graders, I think I would find it difficult to ensure that my service's grading was consistent. Perhaps having one grader check everything before it left the building would do it, but that probably wouldn't be practical.
How do you think a grading service should go about maximizing the consistency of the grades it awards (or can they)?
Dan
How do you think a grading service should go about maximizing the consistency of the grades it awards (or can they)?
Dan
0
Comments
???????????
09/07/2006
<< <i>Wasn't a computerized grading program put into trial by a grading company, or am i just going crazy
-PCGS tried it, dealers tricked the computer and got huge payouts on the grade guarantee... byebye
-Amos Press tried it when they bought ANACS... total flop
-DCGS was here and gone in no time flat... 'nuff said
The key is to have a number of masters such that the graders don't "learn" what they look like and automatically assign the correct grade. But that is also the tough part.
Cameonut
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
It can't be done on a large scale, PCGS and NGC are both living proof of that. Both services have gone through numerous grading standards since 1986-7 and they will both change again in the future, you can count on that. Both services have also had dozens of different people grading for them since inception, and no two people grade exactly alike, regardless of their expertise or experience, so the system has unrepairable flaws from the word go.
I'm quite sure that anyone who cracks out and resubmits coins both over time and on a large scale will tell you that both services are anything but consistent......and many dealers have tried making a living playing the inconsistency game and looking for upgrades.
If you cracked out an 1880-S Morgan dollar from a PCGS MS67 holder and took it to a major show and showed it (raw) to 10 or 12 of the most experienced and respected dealers that specialize in Morgan dollars and asked them for an objective opinion of grade......you're going to get opinions anywhere from lightly cleaned, to a strong MS65, to a possible MS68PL, and everywhere in between, and perhaps a few of those dealers have even graded for one of the major services in the past.
If some how a reliable statistic could show what percentage of coins now residing in either PCGS or NGC holders were at one point in time in a different grade/designation NGC or PCGS holder (either higher or lower), I think many people would be shocked, the percentage is probably much higher than most people would think.
If I were running a service I would make a strong effort to create a grading set for each major design of U.S. coin and have the graders refer to it regularly. I know that when I go on buying trips, my grading eye can become corrupted by the overgraded stuff that I regularly encounter. Some people say that you can’t be a dealer and a collector at the same time. I strongly disagree. After I’ve spent a couple of days looking at overgraded stuff it helps me to come back and look at the items in my collection to get back my grading eye.
More time spent on grading each coin, a reference set, honest standards that are enforced and qualified graders from the get-go are the secrets to improving the quality of grading services.
Is it not human error that screws up the computers in the first place?
I believe the company was COMPUGRADE. From another thread "COMPUGRADE was in business for only a short time in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Their grading was average with most dealers/collectors of the time disliking the small holder.".
step # 2, get rid of all the stupid, frivolous modifiers, like "full torch" & "rb/rd/br"
that would solve 90% of the problem EASY.
until that's done, all the complaining about "inconsistency" is just a bunch of whining baloney. if you think you can get "consistency" with something that is purely SUBJECTIVE, yet has so many ridiculous precision points, fuggedaboutit.
K S
<< <i>step # 1, get rid of all the stupid, frivolous grades like "vf-25" & "au-53", & "ms-62" >>
Funny you mention that. I could never get myself to use VF-25 or AU-53.
I accept and use VF-20, -30 and -35 (as "typical" VF, "premium" VF and "essentially XF but for one or two minor details"), and I can deal with AU-50, -55 and -58 (as "standard" AU, "choice" AU and "essentially mint state with the slightest trace of rub"). But for some reason, VF-25 and AU-53 just seems like splitting hairs to me...
<< <i>step # 1, get rid of all the stupid, frivolous grades like "vf-25" & "au-53", & "ms-62" >>
Actually I don't have a problem with MS-62. I've found some really great bargains in those holders, especially when the price jump from MS-60 to MS-63 is huge.
Agreed. The solution (for those who believe consistency is important) is to get rid of the subjectivity. Give it time, it will happen.
BTW, as a collector, I do not care about consistency. I prefer to make my own subjective judgments about coins. Makes it more fun.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>BTW, as a collector, I do not care about consistency. I prefer to make my own subjective judgments about coins. Makes it more fun. >>
I agree with that to a point, Andy, and subjectivity will always be a part of the game.
Still a few days ago a collector on these boards complained about "one way markets" where dealers are more than happy to sell items, but then will not buy them back. The trouble is I see so many overgraded coins; I can't help but refuse to buy them because they are just not up to snuff. Coin sellers tell buyers that slabs make their coins "liquid" and easy to sell, yet if the coin is ugly or overgraded the collectors learn the bitter truth and then have bad things to say about the hobby.
Most dealers I know who are really careful about what they buy and sell, say the consistency is the biggest problem with certified coins.
1. Establish what grades will be used and use no others. A suggestion has already been made that grades like VF25 and AU53 be dropped. Good idea.
2. For circulated coins a MINIMUM wear standard for each grade would have to be established for each major hub change. A black and white photographic reference with large photos, using duotone or, better yet, tritone printing would have to be published and made VERY generally available. None of the current grading guides is adequate.
3. For Uncirculated and Proof coins establish tight written standards for each type and grade used. Some grades, such as MS61, MS68 and MS70 should be dropped. Concensus grading would be done away with. If in doubt, by even one grader, it ALWAYS goes to the lower grade.
4. Establish a net grading system for coins with problems of any kind, including coins with just plain bad eye appeal. These coins would go into net graded holder, much as ANACS does today. If in doubt they net to the lower grade.
What are the chances of this happening? Not good...grading is a business and decisions regarding it will be made to maximize profits.
A one point spread is common. Two point differences on regrades are unusual.
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
Isn't Frattlaw the guy I offered to pay his $50 World Series of Grading entry fee and give him $1,000 if he qualified for the finals? I forget if he was the guy. If he was, he never showed up to take the test. Maybe we need to up the ante next year.
David
Jerry
<< <i>Change the standards to be objective and repeatable >>
I have to agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Do away with "market grading" and just grade the surface preservation of the coin. If I want to pay extra for more luster or better eye eppeal or stronger strike, that's between me and the coin dealer; the grading company should not get involved here.
<< <i>step # 1, get rid of all the stupid, frivolous grades like "vf-25" & "au-53", & "ms-62" >>
I disagree. These grades aren't frivolous so long as they are applied accurately... something the major grading services haven't quite figured out how to do with any consistency. If "VF-25" most accurately describes the surface preservation of the coin, then that is what it should be graded.
<< <i>step # 2, get rid of all the stupid, frivolous modifiers, like "full torch" & "rb/rd/br" >>
In full agreement with you on that. Again, this goes back to grading only surface preservation. If the strike is better or the surfaces are less toned, it is up to the seller and the buyer to determine if a higher price is warranted.
<< <i>if you think you can get "consistency" with something that is purely SUBJECTIVE, yet has so many ridiculous precision points, fuggedaboutit. >>
Amen, Dorkkarl! I hate to beat a dead horse, but if grading were more objective (telling us what the surface preservation is) and less subjective (telling us that a coin is worth more because of a stronger strike or more "eye appeal"), we wouldn't have all these inconsistencies.
<< <i>Based on the percentage of coins that my service graded, I would limit what each grader would be authorized to grade. >>
I have been espousing this idea for a long time. I think there should be a "Master Grader" or "Master Graders" for each series or design. That person would be the expert on grading his particular series and would be the only person authorized to grade that series. He could still consult with the other graders, but his word would be "gospel." An alternate idea on this would be to have 4 people grade each coin, with the Master Grader's opinion counting twice as much as the other graders who examined the coin.
K S