What about a grading system that has half poin increments??
saintguru
Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭
64.5, 65, 65.5, etc...
That would give the PQ coins the credit. Just a thought?
That would give the PQ coins the credit. Just a thought?
0
Comments
<< <i>What about a grading system that has half poin increments?? >>
What's a "poin"? Is that anything like poon?
Russ, NCNE
--Severian the Lame
<< <i>64.5, 65, 65.5, etc...
That would give the PQ coins the credit. Just a thought? >>
Or how 'bout going to the A-B-C grading system. This is really 1/3rd of a point and is self explanatory. I was told that this is a system used internally at the TPG's, although I don't know if it's formal or informal.
Seems like a 0.1 system could be used as well, the problem being that if 3 graders in consensus were used, any odd result devided by 3 would leave a fractional balance... This could lead to
A 0.01 system could be used as well, the problem being that if 3 graders in consensus were used, any odd result devided by 3 would leave a fractional balance...
A 0.001 system could be used as well, the problem being that if 3 graders in consensus were used, any odd result devided by 3 would leave a fractional balance...
...
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Isn't that what the NGC star is? A 66* isn't good enough to be a 67, but it's better than a 66. >>
No, that isn't what the Star designation is. It's about eye appeal, not technical grade.
Russ, NCNE
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Just submit to ACG,they do half-point grades... >>
ACG hasn't done decimal point grading since the late 1980's.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>As it turns out, I think the current system works well and is very ingrained. i think the buyers are used to it and don't want to see it changed.
Actually, I personally believe that coin grading is overly precise...certainly in relation to other collectibles. It might be better with less grades. That said, what we have is what we have and I don't see it changing.
David
>>
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>Actually, I personally believe that coin grading is overly precise...certainly in relation to other collectibles. It might be better with less grades. That said, what we have is what we have and I don't see it changing. >>
Sounds like the perfect argument against the 100 point scale came directly from DH himself.
<< <i>64.5, 65, 65.5, etc...
That would give the PQ coins the credit. Just a thought? >>
AGREE! I heard through the grape vine that the NGC star "failed" because it has not added market value. I think it may have failed because NGC was too stringent in awarding it. On the other hand, what if PCGS used the added 0.5 for eye appeal and only for eye apeal on AU and MS grades AND awarded it to the upper 1/3 of submissions?
This would churn the sub turnstiles at PCGS, making the stockholders happy and it sure would enliven the Registry scene, all without a risky leap into a new 100 point grading scale. Just MHO, but I'm old enough to fear unecessary change. ("Be neither the first to try the new nor the last to set the old aside", or words to that effect by a writer a whole lot wiser and even older than I am).
This scheme would also recognize the attractive AU coins and perhaps give them additional market value, at least on the sight-unseen markets.
PCGS doesn't use all the grades from 0 to 59 as it is, so I just don't get the advatage of jumping to 0 to 89 for circulated grades, maybe someone could clue me in??? What is the magic of "100" points if the top end, where the value is, is still just 10 points???
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Suppose you have a standard 12 inch ruler, with 1/16th inch divisions. You're asked to measure to the nearest 1/64th of an inch. You repeat measurements and sometimes it's over by 1/32, sometimes under by 1/32. Someone comes along and says, "you should make your measurements to the nearest 1/128th of an inch. That will solve the uncertainty issue."
NO, IT WON'T!
Would rather see this type of approach than a 100 point system.
.........beat on it some more, it'll break!
<< <i>Grades are not consistently accurate to one point. Therefore, grading to 1/2 point makes no sense whatsoever.
Suppose you have a standard 12 inch ruler, with 1/16th inch divisions. You're asked to measure to the nearest 1/64th of an inch. You repeat measurements and sometimes it's over by 1/32, sometimes under by 1/32. Someone comes along and says, "you should make your measurements to the nearest 1/128th of an inch. That will solve the uncertainty issue."
NO, IT WON'T! >>
As a rank newbie to this board, I should keep my mouth shut, but I respectfully think you're missing the point.
The PCGS MS grade, which is still largely technical, would not change. There would be no greater nor lesser uncertainty about that grade than there is now. What would change is the extra .5 as an indicator that the coin has superior eye appeal for its grade. Granted this is artificial vis-a-vis the numerical continuum from 50 to 69, and a star or happy face would be more specific, but NGC probably has that gambit roped off.
I wish PCGS were a static entity just quietly doing its thing, which it does very well. But, it is a public company and must do whatever it can to increase profits and GROW. Continued growth requires change, so IMHO change is inevitable (for all you "I'm not worried" guys out there). The issue is what kind of change and how radical? Rob, who has had his say, love this board.......
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
<< <i> 64.5, 65, 65.5, etc...
That would give the PQ coins the credit. Just a thought? >>
But you'd still have PQ coins within each increment. MS64.5++, MS65.5 PQ, etc.
You're entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong
My point is that the grading system has been shown to have an inherent degree of imprecision or wobble, about plus/minus 1. Trying to specify it to a finer degree just doesn't make any sense from a scientific perspective. Perhaps using modifiers such as a star does make more sense, rather than trying to further subdivide an inherently imprecise grade number.