What would happen if the hobby dumped the 1-70 grading scale for something else?

SanctionII

This thread's question asks for opinions, speculation and prognostication.

Grading has evolved from "new" and "used"; to adjectival [poor, fair, good, fine extremely fine, almost uncirculated, uncirculated, choice uncirculated, gen uncirculated, etc.]; to Sheldon's numerical 1-70 scale. The 1-70 scale apparently became the norm in the industry/hobby in the 1970's after industry/hobby leaders decided to changed from adjectival to numerical and decided on 1-70 instead of 1-100 [with 1-59 being reserved for circulated coins and 60-70 being reserved for uncirculated coins; BTW has anyone ever seen a raw or slabbed coin graded Fine 11, EF 42, AU 52?].

Since the numerical 1-70 grading scale became the norm, suggestions have been made to tweak same into tenths [ie. MS65.3, MS 62.7] to accomodate needs, demands, wants and desires of persons involved in the 60-70 MS part of the grading scale. Thus far grading broken down into tenths of a point has not caught on [thankfully IMHO].

Grading is subjective and always will be. However, this will not stop people from expanding the frontiers of knowledge and one day some "new" way to grade [i.e., computerized] will catch on and become the next stage in the evolution of grading.

Does anyone care to give their opinion/thoughts on what the next evolution in grading might be?

What will happen to the hobby when the next evolution in grading arrives to displace the current numerical 1-70 system [i.e. for slabbed coins tucked away in their plastic coffins with a numerical grade assigned to it, what will happen to them? will they go up in value, down in value or will they become valueless artifacts (like demonetized coins replaced by the Euro)? For TPG's with gaurantees, how will they react to the next evolution in grading? Looking forward to your replies.

Baley

In my opinion, the 1-70 scale is established and will not change in the foreseeable future (ie in the 40 more years I expect to live)

IMO, the only cases in which decimal grading would make sense is when, for example, a MS64 is $500 and an MS65 is $5000, and a coin is truly in between, a MS64.5 or a 64* or some other modifier to "MS64" might be called for in order to value the coin.

haletj

I think grading would be MORE consistent if there were a finer grading scale. You wouldn't have quite so many huge jumps in price, and these borderline coins... say a really high end ms64 that keeps getting cracked out over and over until it gets ms65, would be nothing more than an ms64.5 or whatever its equivalent is. Finer graded is desperately needed in the modern market esp where you have 100's of ms66's worth $25 each, some which are truly nice ms66.9 coins, and an ms67 pop of 1/0 that is worth $5000. The trick though is the grading would have to be rock solid consistently the same. Not sure if such a thing could be done, at least not by any presently existing grading companies.

TheRaven

I think it would be confusing to people that have been collecting for a long time.

I also don't think that it is needed.....

JRocco

PCGS would love it.

skydivdav

makes no difference to me...I still couldn't learn it.

blue skies!
david

jdimmick

I hope it stays the same. Be to confusing to change, besides the current system is fine.

Longacre

I don't think the current system will ever change. However, I find that I get a better picture of a coin in my mind if I read a good adjectival description of it, rather than just knowing if it is MS-64, 65, etc.

Aethelred

I am 33 and I believe the current grading scale will be around long after I am gone!

kranky

I'll be a fan of decimal-point grading when crackouts never come back a different grade. We pretend that MS coins can be graded accurately one point apart when it's clear that's not the case.

And decimal grading will add to gradeflation. When you have a big price jump between grades, that jump tends (tends, not guarantees) to ensure that only the lock coins make it to the next level. Add decimal grading, and in the example cited of MS64=$500 / MS65=$5000, a lot of those MS64 coins to move to MS64.5. And the really nice MS64 coins that might sell for $1000 will now sell for $2000. Not long after, some of those 64.5s will sneak into 65 holders because the big price jump isn't quite as severe.

That being said, it's probably inevitable that something will change in time. I suspect it will either be more designations or some supplemental description (maybe Full Reeds ) added to the existing grades, instead of splitting the scale finer. It's still going to cause gradeflation, though. Today's coin that got a half-point bump for a exceptionally full strike or great toning will end up someday in a holder with the same numerical grade but also a Full Strike or Super Color designation to boot, and the price will rise accordingly.

Looking at how things evolved, it might have been better if only the 65 to 70 grades were used for Uncs. With only five (six, technically, but you don't see many 70s) possible grades, there would be a lot more agreement on a grade.

mr1931S

What would happen? Well, among collectors who know the differences between wear states on circulated coins and the differences between quality states on uncirculated coins, nothing.

Why does one occasionally see a coin that is between "fine" and "very fine" assigned the not-recognized-by-ANA-standards of grading the letter/number, "F18"? Why not, "VF20(-2)" or "MS60(-42)"?

Baley

I'll be a fan of decimal-point grading when crackouts never come back a different grade. We pretend that MS coins can be graded accurately one point apart when it's clear that's not the case.

Kranky, I believe you actually make the case FOR decimal grading with this statement.

I submit that the vast majority of the "inconsistency" with respect to grade/regrade is due to liner coins that deserve a .5 after the lower number, and be done with "crack and resubmit" for that coin, unless someone wants to try and try again for half a point and half the profit.

And, as JRocco said, "pcgs would love" that

kranky

Baley, you make a good point as usual but I don't think it would work like that. 25% of coins are liners now using one-point increments in the MS range. Add half-point increments, and now you have half of all coins that would be liners and could go either way. To me, that means more crackouts, not fewer, and thus more inexactness.

I agree that most of the inconsistency is due to the liner coins, but adding more increments will just create more liners. A higher grade always means higher cost (not that I think that is right, but it is one of the cardinal rules of the business if you exclude toning) and you'll just end up with more coins being cracked out and resubmitted in the quest for that next half-point.

I still think that gradeflation takes place much easier when the price jumps between grades are smaller, and I think half-point increments would fuel that.

mgoodm3

Big money for the slabbers.

pharmer

I feel like I'm too old to learn another system/scale. And, the current system, however it came about (hmm, now that's a good question too), has a certain quaint cache that lends a mystique to coin collecting. But, a 1-100 scale would be easier to explain to non-coiners, like when I show off a coin to my wife as a very nice 67, and she says that for that kind of money it should be at least a 99.

mrearlygold

Lots and lots and lots of for the services again!


Tom

Prethen

A 1-100 scale makes logical sense. Plus, it could be instituted at the same time the grading services agree upon a coin digital fingerprint technology that will properly track a coin and give accurate population reports. This would enable the services to make a few extra bucks when all the old slabs are called back in for reslabbing, placement into the new scale (a re-grade would be required if you wanted to get anything but the "lowest" grade for something like a 64 going over to an "80" or whatever), and the digital fingerprint taken for storage in a national database. Now that I have it all planned out, I just have to convince the big services to go along with it.

I know....I'm dreaming...but, hey, it's my fantasy....okay?!

Dave99B

It's bound to happen, say a 1-100 scale, for example. Then the grading services could start all over.

Dave

slabfab

Rather than adopt a new scale I think more consistency could be had if the grading services revealed the component grades...i.e. a grade score for preservation, another for luster, another for strike, and yet another for eye appeal. Then it's simple math to come to an overall grade. Of course it would take years to get your coin back

poorguy

I feel that coins should be graded much in the same way as Diamonds. Since several different aspects are taken into account when grading a coin, assigning a number say 1-10 for each quality. These being: Luster, Strike, Contact Marks, Toning, ect. Toning being an objective term referring to almost the same scales as DLRC uses. This would objectively put a grade on a coin that takes into account the many aspects regarding the coins relative quality. Although once that is done, it would be a mess and a half to determine prices for them. In my opinion, that's the only downfall to a different system. It might just be too complex.

bigtonydallas

I have been thinking of creating a computer program that would grade a coin from a scanned image. This image would be compared to am MS70 image in a database. This MS70 image could be a creation of the perfect coin for that year. I believe that agreeing on the perfect image would be difficult. You would have to take into account all the die marriages for each denomination for each year and mint. Akso like mentioned before you would have to take into account strike, luster, die wear, imperfections, etc. If someone could create it and it was accepted by the community, they would probably make a few dollars.

SanctionII

My, my, this is probably the most thought provoking thread I have ever posted.

I like the replies posted so far. Very interesting to see what thoughs/opinions there are on the topic.

No one has yet given a specific response to one aspect of my thread [though some replies have alluded to it]:

If the 1-70 numerical system is discarded and replaced with some other system, what would happen to all of the coins slabbed by TPG's with grading guarantee's?

My own opinion is that these TPG's [i.e. PCGS] would not allow the 1-70 system to be discarded without there being some agreement regarding its guarantee [i.e., it will reholder a PCGS slabbed coin with a conversion from its assigned 1-70 grade to an assigned equivalent grade in the new system; initially (for some specific period of time to facilitate the transition to the new system; or for the first X thousand number of coins) at no charge to the owner of the coin, thereafter with a token charge to the owner of the coin and thereafter at whatever price the market will bear; plus an acknowledgement by the owner of the coin that he/she waives any and all rights they have through the date of reholdering under the PCGS guarantee]. If a change in the grading system from 1-70 to something else is going to happen, the movers and shakers in the industry will acknowedge the inevitability of the change and will creatively figure out how to not only minimize any liabilities they have stemming from the 1-70 system, but to make money off of the change.

Any other thoughts?

Baley

An old thread on the topic