If I recall in the Q&A forum not long ago, Mr Hall isn't too keen on this idea. He will, of course, entertain the thought to those who RSVP to the luncheon invite . I am happy to say I got invited, too.
We argue enough about what constitutes the difference between MS 64 and 65 as it is.... does anyone think putting another thirty grade points in the mix is going to settle man's differences ? Will we then put tenths in between those increments ? Does a gallon of gas really cost another POINT 9 tenths of a cent ?
We only give women a scale of ONE to TEN. How come a coin is so damned complicated ?
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
I try to spend my numismatic budget on coins, not grading opinions and plastic holders.
That said, I do appreciate the "starting point" on the value of a coin that certification provides, and will bid and pay with a little extra confidence if the coin is in a good holder and I generally agree with their grades.
They (pcgs) already "standardized" the grading of coins in the mid 1980's. To change that standard at this late stage of the game by changing the length of the ruler from 70 to 100 seem gratuitous and greedy, to me.
What I'd like to see happen, instead, is to allow fractional points and in-between grades for coins in which the value jumps exponentially with a single grade or point... as discussed in this thread
For example, a 1796 quarter is worth a lot of money even when circulated. Why not allow them to be graded Good-5 or VF 18 if the coin is truly in between?
More frequently for collectors and resubmissions would be coins like many Morgan and Peace dollars in the MS64-67 grades (think 1925-S peace dollar, the 65 price is like 10X the 64 price. the services never give the whole point for 65, but would give 64.5 to those coins that deserve it)
Allowing decimals between relevant grades and using the rest of the 70 point scale would accomplish everything the change to 100 is trying to do, without making it seem like a scam on PCGS customers.
<< <i> there will end up being some conversion scale that will allow va person to get within a grade or two.
new slabs.. does not bother me one bit. >>
fc, you'd be ok having your current grades converted to "within a grade or two"?
What about within 3 or 4 grades instead?
What about the costs (one way or another) to collectors?
What about the fact that, with even more numerical grades to choose from, grading would be called upon to be even more precise than it is now? Never mind, that there are already enough problems with subjectivity and inconsistency with the current grading scale.
Edited to add:
<< <i>Allowing decimals between relevant grades and using the rest of the 70 point scale would accomplish everything the change to 100 is trying to do, without making it seem like a scam on PCGS customers. >>
Baley, I disagree. That, too, would be requiring more precise grading than we have now. I think most collectors and dealers would agree that we already have enough problems with subjective and inconsistent grading as it is.
fc, you'd be ok having your current grades converted to "within a grade or two"?
What about within 3 or 4 grades instead?
within a grade or two is what we currently have, more or less.
3-4 is due to widening the scale.
someone mentioned they are both 29 point scales... this just allows more fine grained control. within 3-4 points ;-)
also, this might result in confusion which can lead to opportunities.
i am so new to the hobby, this scuffle is adding spice to the mix.
but yes, i would be upset if i had to redo my slabbed coins for some silly reason to enjoy a registry set. i would simply not participate unless it was backwards compat.
I think most collectors and dealers would agree that we already have enough problems with subjective and inconsistent grading as it is.
Could part of the reason for "subjective inconsistent grading" be that sometimes it's a 66 and sometimes it's a 67 (depending on the day) because it would be most accurately described as a 66.5?
One thing is for sure if it were to be adopted the best to do so would be PCGS.
How would any one feel if NGC ,Anacs, or ICG started it? Probably not much people would care and just stop submitting to them. So, PCGS would be taking a big risk and it would be probably best to see another one of the grading company's start it and see what happens.
<< <i> think most collectors and dealers would agree that we already have enough problems with subjective and inconsistent grading as it is. >>
<< <i>Could part of the reason for "subjective inconsistent grading" be that sometimes it's a 66 and sometimes it's a 67 (depending on the day) because it would be most accurately described as a 66.5? >>
In some cases, yes. In many others, no. I would attribute most of it to the inherently subjective and inconsistent nature of grading by humans, something that will NOT be improved if the grading scale is changed.
WHAT HE SAID BELOW IS HOW I FEEL REPOSTED FROM ANOTHER POST (his words not mine) It sums it up though.
No you are not. When I had my raw collection slabbed, it cost me as much as $125.00 per coin plus shipping to have it done. The reason was that once coins have a value beyond a certain amount you have to pay that to get work done. The desire for a quick turnover has nothing to do with it.
I went though the usual. I had coins that were graded correctly. I got some gifts. I got some undergrades. And I got some body bags, both deserved and undeserved.
Now after going though that and spending several thousand dollars to get my collection slabbed, we now have this threat that will make all of my slabs obsolete. I'll have to spend thousands of dollars to hold the value of my collection. The guarantee that the slabs would help to maintain the values of the my collection because the grades were certified to be correct will be null and void. PLUS all the coins that I have purchased in slabs will be obsolete. I’ll have to have them regraded too.
Can you understand why I am not happy with this? Most of my better coins are high grade circulated early pieces. There will be no “Mint State windfalls" for me. It will be mostly a downside all the way.
<< Or perhaps I don't believe it will actually happen. >>
There is an excellent chance that it is going to happen. David Hall would not be pushing it at his little dinners that he has with collectors if this were not a real threat. He wants to stuff this down our throats so that he can increase his profits. It's just that simple. And despite the fact that 75% of the respondents to the current poll oppose this, he'll probably do it anyway. And if he does do it, he will show a total lack of respect for many of the people who have made his business a success through the years. And he will have also broken trust with the collectors who depended upon the integrity of his product.
I agree Josh, and I believe your concerns are well founded. Pretty interesting in the face of this poll and the results, which are getting close to 80% against. Over 300 votes, and I remember reading a while back that only about 150 of us are regular posters, so this is a hot button topic for others as well.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Comments
We argue enough about what constitutes the difference between MS 64 and 65 as it is.... does anyone think putting another thirty grade points in the mix is going to settle man's differences ? Will we then put tenths in between those increments ? Does a gallon of gas really cost another POINT 9 tenths of a cent ?
We only give women a scale of ONE to TEN. How come a coin is so damned complicated ?
so true ... that's one of the best responses yet!
hey, we even "pay" accordingly as well
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
<< <i>Is it good for numismatics as a whole? >>
If it comes to pass ... I believe it is time to fire PCGS as my TPG of choice ...
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
there will end up being some conversion scale that will allow
a person to get within a grade or two.
new slabs.. does not bother me one bit.
That said, I do appreciate the "starting point" on the value of a coin that certification provides, and will bid and pay with a little extra confidence if the coin is in a good holder and I generally agree with their grades.
They (pcgs) already "standardized" the grading of coins in the mid 1980's. To change that standard at this late stage of the game by changing the length of the ruler from 70 to 100 seem gratuitous and greedy, to me.
What I'd like to see happen, instead, is to allow fractional points and in-between grades for coins in which the value jumps exponentially with a single grade or point...
as discussed in this thread
For example, a 1796 quarter is worth a lot of money even when circulated. Why not allow them to be graded Good-5 or VF 18 if the coin is truly in between?
More frequently for collectors and resubmissions would be coins like many Morgan and Peace dollars in the MS64-67 grades (think 1925-S peace dollar, the 65 price is like 10X the 64 price. the services never give the whole point for 65, but would give 64.5 to those coins that deserve it)
Allowing decimals between relevant grades and using the rest of the 70 point scale would accomplish everything the change to 100 is trying to do, without making it seem like a scam on PCGS customers.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i> there will end up being some conversion scale that will allow va person to get within a grade or two.
new slabs.. does not bother me one bit. >>
fc, you'd be ok having your current grades converted to "within a grade or two"?
What about within 3 or 4 grades instead?
What about the costs (one way or another) to collectors?
What about the fact that, with even more numerical grades to choose from, grading would be called upon to be even more precise than it is now? Never mind, that there are already enough problems with subjectivity and inconsistency with the current grading scale.
Edited to add:
<< <i>Allowing decimals between relevant grades and using the rest of the 70 point scale would accomplish everything the change to 100 is trying to do, without making it seem like a scam on PCGS customers. >>
Baley, I disagree. That, too, would be requiring more precise grading than we have now. I think most collectors and dealers would agree that we already have enough problems with subjective and inconsistent grading as it is.
fc, you'd be ok having your current grades converted to "within a grade or two"?
What about within 3 or 4 grades instead?
within a grade or two is what we currently have, more or less.
3-4 is due to widening the scale.
someone mentioned they are both 29 point scales... this just allows
more fine grained control. within 3-4 points ;-)
also, this might result in confusion which can lead to opportunities.
i am so new to the hobby, this scuffle is adding spice to the mix.
but yes, i would be upset if i had to redo my slabbed coins for some silly
reason to enjoy a registry set. i would simply not participate unless it was
backwards compat.
Could part of the reason for "subjective inconsistent grading" be that sometimes it's a 66 and sometimes it's a 67 (depending on the day) because it would be most accurately described as a 66.5?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
How would any one feel if NGC ,Anacs, or ICG started it? Probably not much people would care and just stop submitting to them. So, PCGS would be taking a big risk and it would be probably best to see another one of the grading company's start it and see what happens.
<< <i> think most collectors and dealers would agree that we already have enough problems with subjective and inconsistent grading as it is. >>
<< <i>Could part of the reason for "subjective inconsistent grading" be that sometimes it's a 66 and sometimes it's a 67 (depending on the day) because it would be most accurately described as a 66.5? >>
In some cases, yes. In many others, no. I would attribute most of it to the inherently subjective and inconsistent nature of grading by humans, something that will NOT be improved if the grading scale is changed.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
No you are not. When I had my raw collection slabbed, it cost me as much as $125.00 per coin plus shipping to have it done. The reason was that once coins have a value beyond a certain amount you have to pay that to get work done. The desire for a quick turnover has nothing to do with it.
I went though the usual. I had coins that were graded correctly. I got some gifts. I got some undergrades. And I got some body bags, both deserved and undeserved.
Now after going though that and spending several thousand dollars to get my collection slabbed, we now have this threat that will make all of my slabs obsolete. I'll have to spend thousands of dollars to hold the value of my collection. The guarantee that the slabs would help to maintain the values of the my collection because the grades were certified to be correct will be null and void. PLUS all the coins that I have purchased in slabs will be obsolete. I’ll have to have them regraded too.
Can you understand why I am not happy with this? Most of my better coins are high grade circulated early pieces. There will be no “Mint State windfalls" for me. It will be mostly a downside all the way.
<< Or perhaps I don't believe it will actually happen. >>
There is an excellent chance that it is going to happen. David Hall would not be pushing it at his little dinners that he has with collectors if this were not a real threat. He wants to stuff this down our throats so that he can increase his profits. It's just that simple. And despite the fact that 75% of the respondents to the current poll oppose this, he'll probably do it anyway. And if he does do it, he will show a total lack of respect for many of the people who have made his business a success through the years. And he will have also broken trust with the collectors who depended upon the integrity of his product.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."