Is gradeflation just a way to force the 100 point scale?

RegistryCoin

When all, or most TPG-graded coins reach their "peter principle" grade on the 70 point scale, happy in their little coffins, are they going to come alive again, only to play the game some more in the 100 point scale?

Baley

yes and no.

there can be no better coin than a perfect 70,

but you can have half and quarter points for MS grades.

30 more increments could give you 100 "grades"

add to that, designators such as cameo and strike and pl,

and you have infinite "regrade" possibilities

Julian

Like everyone else, I have noticed gradeflation. Some of it is and some of it is correcting previous undergrading.

When CU was having informational meetings at Long Beach many years ago, I asked David what was planned for the future. At that time, he didn't see a problem and didn't have any plans for another system.

As you all know, I was a member of a panel that touched on this at the FUN show. I believe that the conclusions reached were that nothing new would be initiated until such point as there exists coin recognition software.

If a coin is going to have a new grade assigned, it must be a concious decision on the part of the service. It cannot continue to be a gamble of resubmission.

I do not see any new system or scale being institued until such time as there is a coin recognition program in use and could not support such system unless it was. I feel that many long time numismatists share that sentiment.

Grading will likely always be an art. One 65 will always be better than another, etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!

Coxe

<< <i>Grading will likely always be an art. One 65 will always be better than another, etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!! >>



Exactly, Julian. I am against the 10 point system on several levels. This is a key one. The breadth of market factor (eye appeal, provenance, ...) is currently on the order of a grading increment on both sides of the technical grades, with exceptions. Graduating it further then adds no value for many coins and, in fact, sets the industry up for much more TPG reliance. It might be worthwhile for commodity coins. For classic coins, I cannot imagine a sight-unseen technical valuation between say 64 and 65. The buyer needs to see the coin. Circulated coins sure don't need more graduation. They already have 59 (largely unusable) points of the Sheldon scale and nobody really cares about the number assignments. 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 could just as well be VF, VF+, VF++, XF-, for instance.

Computer assisted image discrimination will be indispensible in the future. I think it will be most useful in authenticating, designating, identifying potential wear, and passing along basic metrics to live graders, like mirror depth, band integrity, measures of luster and mark densities, ....

morgannut2

Although I like the points of Coxe and Julian, I would support a 100 point system IF a few thing could be achieved. Firstly to a beginner, a 90 point grade at school is an A, or A-. That gets the idea of a top coin grade (GEM) across easily to beginners who rely on TPGS' opinions. Also it adds 9 more intermediate grades 90 to 100, replacing 5 from 65 to 70.
Next:In a large number of series I collect there is always a group of dates where the high percentile examples are NEVER MADE. (I call these "PROTECTED GRADES") Some examples in one series I know are infamous: 1880-O Morgans that look fully gem 65 but ALWAYS get an MS64. You see them at auctions where one MS64 80-O auctions for $1,150, the next MS64 nice lusterous one with clean cheek, etc goes for $2850, and a nice just made it MS64DMPL (looks pl) goes for $8,150 in... I suggest the grading is very distorted for some reason (population protection). Same thing with Morgan 93CC's--especially in MS63-64-65. It's not uncommon to see a MS-64 go for $10,750, then in the same auction a much cleaner and well struck one go for $14,750!! Then an full stuck ,semi pl, MS62 goes for $4400 but the weak, poor luster MS63 gets $2850. ----The same holds for some really nice MS64 1932D Washington Quarters that look almost identical to their MS65 cousins, and are hands down better and more Gemmy than 95% of the MS64's.

I suggest if Gem grades of 90 to 100 were added, the few dates artifically held back by the TPGS would stop being a problem--Right NOW: The pocket books of wealty collectors are spent chasing too few gems (or MS66/67 in other series), Those with a great "Collector Eye" are hurt when the services view their "liner" 1880-O as a MS64 when it looks to anyone a full grade or MORE better than most of the other MS-64's. If you kick the PQ or trully top coins up to MS 90--Now MS65, and ALSO allow already graded MS65's to also move up one grade---or even 2 full grades, then the big price jumps are more fairly and EVENLY distributed--they're smoothed out price-wise.

The implication to TPG liability in this way would also be lessened. If an Ms64 drops down to what would be an MS63 1/2 (MS85?) then they can actually afford to get a lot of overgraded stuff of the market because there aren't the big price jumps needed to recompense the owner currently.

I don't see much impact below AU Grades, they're still going to have the same prefixes-just different numbers. Only thing that might help is to reserve more spaces to show different wear--especially in older gold, but also proof and prooflike coins. There could be more spots in AU to distinguish true cabnet friction, very light circulation, more circulation with the fields impacted and an even lower number with some minimum % luster required below which a coin's EF.