If the 100 point system is all about the money ...
pursuitofliberty
Posts: 7,216 ✭✭✭✭✭
If the 100 point system is all about the money than it's my opinion that PCGS is being short sighted.
First of all, I do not want to see the grading system changed ... at all. Although the sheep may follow, overall I think it would be bad for the both the hobby, and the investment side of the numismatic community. Trust is a huge issue with the TPG's, and if the trust is broken or changed that makes it hard for people to understand, the TPG's may find some difficulty in their power position.
Also, I do not like the idea of the coming abuses that would certainly follow.
Can we all see it now ... PCGS MS65, old grade ... very PQ for the grade, should upgrade to MS94 or 95 easily!
Come and be a part folks, if you thought you understood before, we'll really send you reeling now.
As I have slowly slabbed my collection with PCGS, my trust has been three-fold. First, that PCGS will remain a dominant force and enforce the standard that they have created and helped create in the marketplace. Second, that my coins will be more suitbaly preserved for the long-term, safe from the common forms of mishandling and damage. Finally, that my collection will be ready for sale, and noticed as certified by a recognizable and agreeable standard that has withstood the tests of some time, with which to attempt negotiations. Mostly the final is if this is required by my family (and not by me personally).
Okay, now for the idea being short sighted. If it's all about keeping the submissions flowing, and even if a 100 point system could be refined in it's entirety, using every number ... it is still fairly finite, and would not nessesarily keep the submissions coming in forever. Actually, I think we are only usin 29 of 70 points now, so maybe with the expanded MS (and possibly AU) grades, we might use, what 42?
Well, in that case, if these changes are adopted, twenty years from now, I feel it would/could "have" to happen again.
I think we all agree that grading is subjective. As it is, this is a good thing for the services (not so much so for the hobby however), as many people will submit a coin repeatedly in search of a higher grade. More dollars, more business for the TPG's.
What if the TPG's got it right more often and didn't relax or tighten (I think they can) on the technical grade (1-70), but had a thousand other combinations within that grade to be subjective?
Before you moan and groan, let me explain. Say PCGS adopted three other ten point scales. For example;
Strike grade 1-10 used to define the striking qualities within that grade
Luster grade 1-10 used to define the luster qualities within that grade
Quality grade 1-10 used to define the surface qualites within that grade
So an MS65 coin could now be an MS65 S6L8Q5; or a S3L4Q2; or some other combination. Theoretically the grade now has 1000 posibilities (10 to the power of 3). Some would have even more because designations are already in place such as BN, RB, RD, FS, FB, FH, FBL, etc.
Leave Eye Appeal out of the equation. That is something that is too subjective, IMO. Generally Strike, Luster and Surface Quality define eye appeal. Some people like white more than toned, some like greens more than blues, reds and burgandies more than golds and oranges.
However, now people want to resubmit to get the designations. Oh, that should have been a L8 not an L6 ... let's try again.
A little advanced math and we can have registries fighting over a thousandths of a point. More regrades.
For those of us who care not to play right away, we still have a MS65 graded as a MS65, which should still be a MS65, sans the subjective assessments that someone is now paying to have added. The implied gaurantee is still in place.
And, in this case, the trust that the TPG's used to build themselves up with is not broken ... at least IMO. Maybe stretched a little ... but not broken.
First of all, I do not want to see the grading system changed ... at all. Although the sheep may follow, overall I think it would be bad for the both the hobby, and the investment side of the numismatic community. Trust is a huge issue with the TPG's, and if the trust is broken or changed that makes it hard for people to understand, the TPG's may find some difficulty in their power position.
Also, I do not like the idea of the coming abuses that would certainly follow.
Can we all see it now ... PCGS MS65, old grade ... very PQ for the grade, should upgrade to MS94 or 95 easily!
Come and be a part folks, if you thought you understood before, we'll really send you reeling now.
As I have slowly slabbed my collection with PCGS, my trust has been three-fold. First, that PCGS will remain a dominant force and enforce the standard that they have created and helped create in the marketplace. Second, that my coins will be more suitbaly preserved for the long-term, safe from the common forms of mishandling and damage. Finally, that my collection will be ready for sale, and noticed as certified by a recognizable and agreeable standard that has withstood the tests of some time, with which to attempt negotiations. Mostly the final is if this is required by my family (and not by me personally).
Okay, now for the idea being short sighted. If it's all about keeping the submissions flowing, and even if a 100 point system could be refined in it's entirety, using every number ... it is still fairly finite, and would not nessesarily keep the submissions coming in forever. Actually, I think we are only usin 29 of 70 points now, so maybe with the expanded MS (and possibly AU) grades, we might use, what 42?
Well, in that case, if these changes are adopted, twenty years from now, I feel it would/could "have" to happen again.
I think we all agree that grading is subjective. As it is, this is a good thing for the services (not so much so for the hobby however), as many people will submit a coin repeatedly in search of a higher grade. More dollars, more business for the TPG's.
What if the TPG's got it right more often and didn't relax or tighten (I think they can) on the technical grade (1-70), but had a thousand other combinations within that grade to be subjective?
Before you moan and groan, let me explain. Say PCGS adopted three other ten point scales. For example;
Strike grade 1-10 used to define the striking qualities within that grade
Luster grade 1-10 used to define the luster qualities within that grade
Quality grade 1-10 used to define the surface qualites within that grade
So an MS65 coin could now be an MS65 S6L8Q5; or a S3L4Q2; or some other combination. Theoretically the grade now has 1000 posibilities (10 to the power of 3). Some would have even more because designations are already in place such as BN, RB, RD, FS, FB, FH, FBL, etc.
Leave Eye Appeal out of the equation. That is something that is too subjective, IMO. Generally Strike, Luster and Surface Quality define eye appeal. Some people like white more than toned, some like greens more than blues, reds and burgandies more than golds and oranges.
However, now people want to resubmit to get the designations. Oh, that should have been a L8 not an L6 ... let's try again.
A little advanced math and we can have registries fighting over a thousandths of a point. More regrades.
For those of us who care not to play right away, we still have a MS65 graded as a MS65, which should still be a MS65, sans the subjective assessments that someone is now paying to have added. The implied gaurantee is still in place.
And, in this case, the trust that the TPG's used to build themselves up with is not broken ... at least IMO. Maybe stretched a little ... but not broken.
“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
0
Comments
<< <i>Okay, now for the idea being short sighted. If it's all about keeping the submissions flowing, and even if a 100 point system could be refined in it's entirety, using every number ... it is still fairly finite, and would not nessesarily keep the submissions coming in forever >>
True, but in terms of potential submissions and $, it still handily beats the alternative of not making the change. By the way, Todd, I like your suggestion far more than the aforementioned change.
True, but in terms of potential submissions and $, it still handily beats the alternative of not making the change.
I agree ... in fact in reading through the debated posts, and thinking about the statements made by all sides (including David Halls comments) I think it is clear that some form of change may be inevitable ... and may be sooner rather than later. Business is business ... no matter how unfortunate that may be at times.
By the way, Todd, I like your suggestion far more than the aforementioned change
Thanks Mark. If the money that drives the bus can see that it may be a much greater sustainable windfall, with potentially less uprising and discontent, maybe it's the kind of change (or some form like it) that is more suitable. Gradeflation was finite. Loosening and tightening (if it really happens) is also somewhat finite. Splitting hairs on technical grades will also be finite. The true art of grading is not the technical aspect as much as the subjective side ... and so by widening that area, they have some long term stability without having to affect he tecnicl grading asspect and implied gauruntees within
Time will tell I suppose ...
“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
>>>>If the 100 point system is all about the money than it's my opinion that PCGS is being short sighted
its all about the money....and your dead wrong they are not being short sighted.........they are being long sighted trying to extend their gravey train for several more years
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...THAST GREEDY WALL STREET
they want our millions in their pockets.......and those very same millions could be bidders after our coins..but no...they want to siphon off several hundred million
its all about the money.period!!
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
be directly translated into it. In other words there would be no compelling rea-
son to send your coins in for regrading. If the new system is strictly to get rid
of the irrational 70-pt system then there would be little need to send coins in
for regrade but if the grading system is more descriptive or accurate then col-
lectors will desire to send in their coins for the information. This would be value
added and would be beneficial to all involved so long as the old system is mod-
ified rather than simply trashed.
Just as now, no one will be forced to submit coins.
I'll wait till I hear the details to damn it.
>>> In other words there would be no compelling rea-
son to send your coins in for regrading
yea right...right up to the time your buddy who has been buying all you dups and you keeping the pq monsters does this to ya
your coin......ms66=83.....price sheet 1,300 but still in a 66 holder
his coin.........ms 66=85 ...price sheet 1,600 now in this new "86"
you will be forced to play...and i for the life of me cant believe there are people who are goin mmmmmmmmmmm let me think about it
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...END OF STORY...WALL STREET GREED
****************MONEY*******************
,
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
but where you can win at this new grading thing if it comes to pass and i think it will is
to only buy coins in todays holders that are at least asolid for the grade if not higher but the key herre is
with killer monster eye appeal pre 1917 and the 36-42 proof type coins along with early commems
again the kewy is killer eye appeal/coins with extraspecial extraordinary qualities about them
the problem is 99% of the current market is not as such these coins
to everybody, I keep seeing TPG, TPG, TPG....when all I can find on a 100 point grading scale is PCGS, PCGS, PCGS. Is PCGS the only TPG talking about this? Whose really pushing this? Where does the ANA stand? Who cares where the ANA stands? What do NGC and ANACS say? I have yet to receive a email from either one of them inviting me to a luncheon to hear what they have to say.
Jerry
>>>but where you can win at this new grading thing if it comes to pass and i think it will is
your scarey.....you think it will..............not if the market says no!!!!!!!!!!end of story.............if the market says no....its no
read some of the other boards.where as i discussed it ...pcgs and ngc have to be on the same page.........and if one doesnt do it it curtains for the other...hard to do but not inpossible
but
with 3 services the problem for them just doesnt double..........it goes up many times double
i`ll tell ya what id do.........if i were anacs
id hire miles standish and when the other 2 go to this new 100 point deal.............id take all there business..........a one shot deal.........accurate grading just like your house value
and make a hundred million...................
so think on your feet there my friend....aint nothinghappening unless the market says so...so be an informed participant
as americans we have the right to bear arms...........that right is not so we can all tote guns around...its there so that any goverment army will not be able to defeat an armed population....without guns it would be easy
you think our fore fathers werent smart
look at all the problems we have in iraq with the tuffest army in the world but they are armed too
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
<< <i>cladking, why is the 70 point grading scale irrational??
>>
Perhaps "irrational" is a poor choice of words.
In the real world of coins, condition simply doesn't lay out neatly on a seventy point scale
of which much isn't even really in use. One could use any number of points sufficient to
differentiate one grade from another but why incorporate gaps and fail to separate the
finest coins with very light wear into more than two grades?
This system was started to show the relative valuations of large cents by grade. While it
worked after a fashion for those coins at that time it has almost no bearing on other series.
For instance, most clad quarters normally have a premium only in uncirculated condition. One
would be very hard pressed to even find a specimen below AG+ so establishing a basal value
has no meaning. Few of these coins have a premium at the current time even in XF so the
continuum simply doesn't exist. Across the board this system is greatly flawed and doesn't
even work for large cents any more.
It would make far more sense to at least use a scale that has equidistant points and no gaps.
Those in favor want a system they can abuse for a while and try to make some money at ... although I am in agreement with Monsterman ... it is a losing proposition for us in the long (and short) run ... it will syphon money out of the coin and into the plastic ... and the wealth will be redistributed away from us
Those opposed do not want our hobby, or our coins, held hostage to the TPG's whim ... even if we have knowlingly or unknowingly given them some of that power over the years
Cladking,
In the real world of coins, condition simply doesn't lay out neatly on a seventy point scale
of which much isn't even really in use. One could use any number of points sufficient to
differentiate one grade from another but why incorporate gaps and fail to separate the
finest coins with very light wear into more than two grades?
This system was started to show the relative valuations of large cents by grade. While it
worked after a fashion for those coins at that time it has almost no bearing on other series.
For instance, most clad quarters normally have a premium only in uncirculated condition. One
would be very hard pressed to even find a specimen below AG+ so establishing a basal value
has no meaning. Few of these coins have a premium at the current time even in XF so the
continuum simply doesn't exist. Across the board this system is greatly flawed and doesn't
even work for large cents any more.
That is the most idiotic babble I've read from you yet. A 100 point scale would change this how?
A basal state coin (clad or not), when they get that far along, is still a basal state coin, irregareless of what value you place on it. Hey, some of these PO-1 collectors are paying way over Good money for their finds!
And a Perfect Coin is still perfect, whether it's a 70, 100 or 1000 for that mater. It's f'n perfect!
Frankly, in my mind at least, a Gem is still Gem, a Choice is still Choice and a Superb is still Superb also, but we've already evolved past that, right?.
If you want a system to VALUE your coins for you, like the one Dr. Sheldon designed and we adopted to use for a GRADING REFERENCE, then it will never be static. Unless you are talking about a very finite group of survivors, it will never even be doable.
Ultimately the value of a coin is driven by those who spend the money buying coins, and eventually the musical chairs always speed up, slow down ... and sometimes just stop. Values change on demand.
Monsterman and I shared a couple of PM's earlier. I'll keep everything he said to myself, but share something I wrote to him;
the TPG's want more money, money, money ...
and the fools want more assurance, assurance, assurance ...
and the collectors like you and me would rather spend the money on the coin and leave the extra assurances to the fools and their keepers
I'll shut up for now ...
“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>That is the most idiotic babble I've read from you yet. A 100 point scale would change this how? >>
Thank you. I've set the bar pretty high so this was quite an accomplishment.
I have to suspect you've misunderstood this particular idiocy however.
The third paragraph was simply intended to illustrative of how this
system came about. The second is to illustrate in what way it is "irrational".
Okay I'm game then ... tell my why 100 points makes more sense than 70 then ... but cut to the chase ... no babble ... I've been in this hobby a long time ... I remember the first time I saw the Wall Street boys come to town 18/19 years ago ... I remember the first slabs ... and I know enough to pretty much see how we got here, today ...
Twenty years ago, I was all for 100 point system. The standard was set at a 70 point scale. We moved forward. It ddin't make any difference if it was 29, 50, 76, 100, or 327. As long as we could agree within reason and hold the course within reason, then it would work. And ... it has.
So tell me ... and again, please try to be clear ... what makes a 100 point scale better than a 70 pont scale?
“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
can be forced into 100 points or 20 points without making the old system obsolete.
My primary interest is in seeing a grading system that is actually based on the con-
dition of a coin rather than its value.
There would be many benefits to such a system.
actually, with the exception of some gradeflation/market grading nuances ... I think that's what we have now. Not perfect, but somewhat understood and agreeable across the board.
if the wheel isn't broken, why fix it?
Back to the topic of my post ... if it's about more submission money, which ultimately it has to be, then go with the added grading information ... kind of like NGC's Star designation, but with a lot more possibilities ... strike, luster, surfaces ... hell go big, and throw in eye appeal and color ... 10 to the power of 5 makes for 10,000 combinations within a grade ... that should make for one heck of a run ... or maybe just rate the coin as a 1-10 within that grade ... and then add something else at the 50 year celebration ...
but in the end ... leave the scale intact!
“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
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Slabs have been with us for nearly 20 years. The classic coins that are worth anything, excepting material in the hands of EAC people & the like, have with a few exceptions, already been graded. The first generation slabs have been picked over by now. The only classic coins that are submitted these days are upgrade candidates. This has been going on for who knows how many years, and you have to ask yourself, "how many more really undergraded classic coins are out there?"
Add into the stew that grading is always subjective, so not only to you have to pay to resubmit your coins, but there is downside risk and upside potential, as Conder pointed out in an earlier thread. Many of the coins I collect double or triple in value between, say, MS 64 & MS 65, and MS 65 & MS 66.
I've done several in holder submissions and received upgrades. I've never had the nerve to crack out my coins, but with a new system, in effect, that's exactly what I would have to do. And there would be no grade guarantee, like when I sent my coins in holder for upgrades. As I said earlier, if say, a 65 would be a 95, there would be no reason to crack out your coins in the first place.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>so then, based on that logic, the current system could be kept at 70 points and we could have that based on condition? correct?
>>
No. Grading is not based on condition, it is based on value. The major services generally do
an excellent job but look at three or four different coins in the same grade. Different collectors
will have value them differently based on their condition. Some will prefer strike, or originality
or markfree surfaces so collectors will see the coins much differently.
<< <i>Cladking - IMO, they wouldn't change it to a 100 point system if it would not be necessary to resubmit your coins.
Slabs have been with us for nearly 20 years. The classic coins that are worth anything, excepting material in the hands of EAC people & the like, have with a few exceptions, already been graded. The first generation slabs have been picked over by now. The only classic coins that are submitted these days are upgrade candidates. This has been going on for who knows how many years, and you have to ask yourself, "how many more really undergraded classic coins are out there?"
Add into the stew that grading is always subjective, so not only to you have to pay to resubmit your coins, but there is downside risk and upside potential, as Conder pointed out in an earlier thread. Many of the coins I collect double or triple in value between, say, MS 64 & MS 65, and MS 65 & MS 66.
I've done several in holder submissions and received upgrades. I've never had the nerve to crack out my coins, but with a new system, in effect, that's exactly what I would have to do. And there would be no grade guarantee, like when I sent my coins in holder for upgrades. As I said earlier, if say, a 65 would be a 95, there would be no reason to crack out your coins in the first place. >>
There would be differences in grading if a condition based system were phased in but
these could be very nominal. Since grades are value based there would be far less ef-
fect on values than on grades.
Keep in mind that no one has suggested they're doing any such thing anyway. Home-
RunHall specifically said they are investigating (talking about) getting away from the 70
point system largely just because it's unwieldy. This would not necessitate any change
in current standards, merely a new numbering system.
Certainly those who have large numbers of graded coins have some monetary interest
in not needing to have them all regraded but even if this were to happen those who are
buying nice attractive coins for the grade will probably have enough upgrades that it can
pay this cost. Yes, I can understand the misgivings many have but this may be no more
than a tempest in a teapot.
an excellent job but look at three or four different coins in the same grade. Different collectors
will have value them differently based on their condition. Some will prefer strike, or originality
or markfree surfaces so collectors will see the coins much differently.
I disagree ... grading, in therory, is based on condition.
HOWEVER, market grading and gradeflation have influenced (and probably perpetuated) the perception of VALUE grading.
No matter how good it looks, a VF20 or VF30 coin does not lose it's wear and become an AU50.
Oh, we're talking about just the AU55 and better coins? Okay then ... no matter how good it looks a baggy 63 should never be in a 66 holder.
Are mistakes made? Sure. Have the standards shifted over time a bit? My take is yes. But the general technical merits of a coin are defined (subjective, but defined).
Are coins of the same grade valued differently by the collectors that pursue them? Of course. I've seen many coins in the grades I collect that are a "pass" ... and some that are a definate "play". Do we need a subjective opinion to decide and try to exact a price, or does the market and it's knowledgable participants do a pretty good job?
Would a 100 point scale be any less "unwieldy"? I have a hard time believing that more possibilities make it less unwieldy ... my guess is that it makes it moreso ... however
Dhealth ... I favored a 100 point standard some 20 years ago as the fledgling services began there reign, before we had a firm agreeable standard in place ... the decimal system made more sense. Today, I don't want to change the standard as I see it as a detriment to the hobby, a hobby I love ...
... but ... at least your point as presented holds some water, so I'm glad you shared it
Elcontador ... but with a new system, in effect, that's exactly what I would have to do. And there would be no grade guarantee, like when I sent my coins in holder for upgrades. As I said earlier, if say, a 65 would be a 95, there would be no reason to crack out your coins in the first place. exactly ... so again, it begs the question ... if the wheel isn't broken ...
okay, I'll shut up again
“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>i`ll tell ya what id do.........if i were anacs
id hire miles standish and when the other 2 go to this new 100 point deal.............id take all there business..........a one shot deal.........accurate grading just like your house value >>
But how do you take "all of their business" whan you are providing "traditional 70 point grades" and all of the price guides are reporting prices in the new 100 point system? Would you buy slabbed coins graded on a system that had no available price guide? (Ok so some of us who buy colonials, varieties etc that have no price guides might, but would the general collector? I think not.)
>>>>>If a MS64 is worth $500 sight-unseen, and an MS65 is worth $20,000
spreads like this are not common......but for conversation sake before i would buy the 65.....the 64 pop has to be small............and if it wee small and the series was in demand the your numbers might say
64 = 1800
65 = 20,000
that being said id rather pay 2700 for the best 64 and 65 it.....or the 65 better be a lock 66 to keep it`s pop managed...aka no others grace 65
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
David Hall Q&A
Here is his text...
I don't believe the numismatic community is ready for a 100 point scale. If the 100 point scale was used I believe the conversion chart should be...
100=70
99=69
98=68
97=67
96=66
95=65
94=64
93=63
92=62
91=61
90=60
88=58
85=55
83=53
80=50
75=45
70=40
65=35
60=30
55=25
50=20
35=15
30=12
25=10
20=8
15=6
12=4
10=3
8=2
5=1
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>I don't believe the numismatic community is ready for a 100 point scale. If the 100 point scale was used I believe the conversion chart should be... >>
<< <i>Interesting the way this one dropped off the charts once I linked to the Q&A, and the other thread keeps right on going. >>
Don't take too much credit for that.
Regarding "I don't believe the numismatic community is ready for a 100 point scale" - what is said, is not necessarily what which will occur. As I noted in another thread, if Mr. Hall were firmly against the idea, I doubt it would be up for discussion at a PCGS luncheon. And, let's face it, if a new scale is adopted, we have no idea whether it will correlate to the example he gave or not.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I can pretty much gaurantee you one thing ... if the 100 point scale is adopted, that's NOT the conversion chart.
There's no money there, nothing changes ... still 11 points in Unc.
No, be very affraid that if it changes ... it will be more like 1-58 stay the same ...
It IS after all, all about the money ... and in that respect ... it stinks.
“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
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay