<< <i>Way too complicated. No one would use it. >>
Bingo. No reason to complicate a system that works just to appease people who own AU58 coins. Dealers and buyers will work out a price for the coin...AU58s might be higher priced than 61s in some inventories. WE DO NOT NEED A NEW GRADING SCALE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!!!!
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
A good portion of the classic coins that are worth slabbing, are already entombed in plastic. This leaves a couple options for the two top TPGs: lower their prices to encourage people to submit more widgets or bullion, loosen up the grading standards a bit to encourage the crack out artists and collectors, or come up with an alternative grading system that appeals to more folks.
The alternative to this would be for the services to keep their grading standards very high, stay with a 'one size fits all' grading scale, and watch their bottom line fall from fewer submissions. Being a publicly traded company and stockholders to please, they won't allow this to happen.
Look for the top TPGs to increase their marketing of certain coins with snazzy attributions, "market grading", and overlooking liners. None of these favor the coin collectors looking for strict technical grading based on a coin's merits. However, having an alternative box to check on a grading line would offer someone that wants more info on their coins grade, to get it, as well as a larger scale in which to grade form (perhaps 1-100). The people that are invested in the Sheldon system can simply stick to this if they're happy with it.
Numerical grading in any form carries with it a scientific connotation.
Grading is not scientific or objective. It is subjective.
I continue to use adjectival grading as, IMHO, that paints a better picture of the coin.
In all candor, grading is really a shorthand for price.
Reduce the equation to: Is this coin worth X to me?
Case closed.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i>Numerical grading in any form carries with it a scientific connotation.
Grading is not scientific or objective. It is subjective.
I continue to use adjectival grading as, IMHO, that paints a better picture of the coin.
In all candor, grading is really a shorthand for price.
Reduce the equation to: Is this coin worth X to me?
Case closed. >>
Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby.
<< <i>Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby. >>
Maybe, but I think there are other considerations in play at well.
When new collectors can make more intelligent choices, they are more confident throwing money at coins. And when new money starts chasing coins, that just causes prices to rise for everyone. And that, in turn, can chase out *old* collectors. I know the current pricing for my preferred stuff has me pretty much on the sidelines indefinitely.
Frankly, with coin prices generally sharply on the rise for nice, desirable pieces over the last few years, I don't see how it could be in the best interest of collectors to bring a lot of new people -- and higher demand -- into the hobby. That's good for coin *sellers* but not for coin *buyers* unless they are primarily investors.
I agree with you Brandon about new collectors, but knowledge is the key to building any meaningful collection of anything.
You must appreciate art to be able to collect paintings, sculpture, etc. You must know about history to collect antiques. Consequently, you must learn about coins to collect them properly.
Numerical grading has made numismatics much easier to participate in, granted, but have we developed sophisticated collectors?
This is a new world, I know, but it is critical to have done some studying before spending huge sums of money. It only makes sense.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i>I agree with you Brandon about new collectors, but knowledge is the key to building any meaningful collection of anything.
You must appreciate art to be able to collect paintings, sculpture, etc. You must know about history to collect antiques. Consequently, you must learn about coins to collect them properly.
Numerical grading has made numismatics much easier to participate in, granted, but have we developed sophisticated collectors?
This is a new world, I know, but it is critical to have done some studying before spending huge sums of money. It only makes sense. >>
Based on this premise, we shouldn't even have grading services. I believe the cryptic nature of the current system is what is draining the sophistication out of numismatics. People only care about a big fat number because of it.
With the new system, aspects of the coin's quality are individually pointed out and graded against. These are what make up the current grading scale but now more in-depth allowing for a more harmonious grade assigned based on all the qualities without having to jam them all into a single sheldon grade (which will require explaination down the line when determining the true value).
If the aspects are pointed out and judged independently and then a cumulative total is given, people will KNOW why a coin grades the way it does. That is not the case with our current system. So, even if that collector considers raw coins, they can guage their evaluations by what they've learned about the handful of new system graded coins they've seen or own. I believe this will allow collectors to become sophisticated more quickly than what we have now.
Jeez, poorguy, go get a loan and start up your business already. You have a (potentially good) idea now run with it. Otherwise, please stop saying the same thing over and over....AND OVER...again in your posts.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
I'm inclined to think that the number grading system you propose is too complicated and, as time goes on, would get only more complicated. I mean,look whats happened with the number grading system currently in place.
I might be an anachronism but I'd like to see a return to the simpler "system" of the past ie., Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extra Fine, About Uncirculated.....Strictly Uncirculated...Choice Uncirculated...Gem Uncirculated.
Call something what you might, the price is the thing.That's the number associated with a coin,excepting the date or denomination,of course, that really matters to me when buying or selling. I don't need anyone telling me that the price I'm willing to pay for a coin is "not right" or "too much",etc. With the altitude... ? I have, why should I be interested in entertaining the idea of whether a coin is a "80" or could it be an "81," for example?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
why should I be interested in entertaining the idea of whether a coin is a "80" or could it be an "81," for example?
That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably.
Well, good luck getting your system to be widely recognized and accepted.
The money people have to pay for something really is the thing. Who is going to resubmit their coins to the TPG'S, coins that have already been slabbed using the current system?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably. >>
To some registry weenies it would make a huge difference just as the difference between 65 and 66 (or 69 and 70) can today.
<< <i>That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably. >>
To some registry weenies it would make a huge difference just as the difference between 65 and 66 (or 69 and 70) can today. >>
The registry would have to change quite a bit for the new system to work. However, when the smoke clears, the best sets will still be at the top and the worst sets will still be at the bottom.
<< <i>Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby. >>
I don't see how a different scale will help new collectors. If they would understand a new scale when it is explained to them, they would be able to understand the old scale when it was explained to them.
I believe that people are too neurotic over the number given to a coin in the first place. A nice AU 58 with no distracting hits should be worth more than a low grade MS coin with bad chatter and bag marks...D'Oh
Talk of a new grading system will surely help line the pockets of a portion of the numismatic community while taking the same amount out of the pockets of the other portion....namely collectors.
I would like to see eye-appeal completely taken out of the equation. It's far too subjective to have any meaning to anybody except the person making the determination. For instance, I like the coins in my collection to have lots of luster but still be "white", while others like their coins to be colorful (which I think tends to mask or hide the design. Colorful coins just don't do much for me. That said, I think grading should be completely techinical, with determination of eye-appeal left up to the buyers and sellers. One man's junk is another man's diamond.
You make an interesting case and I appreciate the thought you have given to improving grading. One issue that will always remain with a final, single numerical designation is that it cannot convey a true, complete picture of the coin (one would actually need separate designations for strike, luster, surface marks, and eye appeal).
BTW...In a later edition of the Brown and Dunn grading guide (5th edition, I believe) they proposed a complex grading/description code. It was rather complicated and had little chance of being adopted (but it is a funny read if you can locate a copy of the book).
As Julian mentioned, a numerical designation suggests a "defined" grade without subjectivity (although educated numismatists understand otherwise). Qualitative and quantitative grading are simply shorthand used between knowledgeable parties to help establish a price. Today, way too many collectors have relegated this understanding to third-party grading firms so that they do not need to learn how to grade but can rely blindly on others. But in the end, it is all about price and perceived value.
With your permission, may I borrow some of your thoughts for the next ANA grading course I teach?
Thanks...it's an interesting topic.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Comments
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Way too complicated. No one would use it. >>
Bingo. No reason to complicate a system that works just to appease people who own AU58 coins. Dealers and buyers will work out a price for the coin...AU58s might be higher priced than 61s in some inventories. WE DO NOT NEED A NEW GRADING SCALE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!!!!
The alternative to this would be for the services to keep their grading standards very high, stay with a 'one size fits all' grading scale, and watch their bottom line fall from fewer submissions. Being a publicly traded company and stockholders to please, they won't allow this to happen.
Look for the top TPGs to increase their marketing of certain coins with snazzy attributions, "market grading", and overlooking liners. None of these favor the coin collectors looking for strict technical grading based on a coin's merits. However, having an alternative box to check on a grading line would offer someone that wants more info on their coins grade, to get it, as well as a larger scale in which to grade form (perhaps 1-100). The people that are invested in the Sheldon system can simply stick to this if they're happy with it.
Grading is not scientific or objective. It is subjective.
I continue to use adjectival grading as, IMHO, that paints a better picture of the coin.
In all candor, grading is really a shorthand for price.
Reduce the equation to: Is this coin worth X to me?
Case closed.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>Numerical grading in any form carries with it a scientific connotation.
Grading is not scientific or objective. It is subjective.
I continue to use adjectival grading as, IMHO, that paints a better picture of the coin.
In all candor, grading is really a shorthand for price.
Reduce the equation to: Is this coin worth X to me?
Case closed. >>
Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby.
<< <i>Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby. >>
Maybe, but I think there are other considerations in play at well.
When new collectors can make more intelligent choices, they are more confident throwing money at coins. And when new money starts chasing coins, that just causes prices to rise for everyone. And that, in turn, can chase out *old* collectors. I know the current pricing for my preferred stuff has me pretty much on the sidelines indefinitely.
Frankly, with coin prices generally sharply on the rise for nice, desirable pieces over the last few years, I don't see how it could be in the best interest of collectors to bring a lot of new people -- and higher demand -- into the hobby. That's good for coin *sellers* but not for coin *buyers* unless they are primarily investors.
You must appreciate art to be able to collect paintings, sculpture, etc. You must know about history to collect antiques. Consequently, you must learn about coins to collect them properly.
Numerical grading has made numismatics much easier to participate in, granted, but have we developed sophisticated collectors?
This is a new world, I know, but it is critical to have done some studying before spending huge sums of money. It only makes sense.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>Numerical grading in any form carries with it a scientific connotation.
Grading is not scientific or objective. It is subjective.
I continue to use adjectival grading as, IMHO, that paints a better picture of the coin.
In all candor, grading is really a shorthand for price.
Reduce the equation to: Is this coin worth X to me?
Case closed. >>
I've always agreed with this.
<< <i>I agree with you Brandon about new collectors, but knowledge is the key to building any meaningful collection of anything.
You must appreciate art to be able to collect paintings, sculpture, etc. You must know about history to collect antiques. Consequently, you must learn about coins to collect them properly.
Numerical grading has made numismatics much easier to participate in, granted, but have we developed sophisticated collectors?
This is a new world, I know, but it is critical to have done some studying before spending huge sums of money. It only makes sense. >>
Based on this premise, we shouldn't even have grading services. I believe the cryptic nature of the current system is what is draining the sophistication out of numismatics. People only care about a big fat number because of it.
With the new system, aspects of the coin's quality are individually pointed out and graded against. These are what make up the current grading scale but now more in-depth allowing for a more harmonious grade assigned based on all the qualities without having to jam them all into a single sheldon grade (which will require explaination down the line when determining the true value).
If the aspects are pointed out and judged independently and then a cumulative total is given, people will KNOW why a coin grades the way it does. That is not the case with our current system. So, even if that collector considers raw coins, they can guage their evaluations by what they've learned about the handful of new system graded coins they've seen or own. I believe this will allow collectors to become sophisticated more quickly than what we have now.
I might be an anachronism but I'd like to see a return to the simpler "system" of the past ie., Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extra Fine, About Uncirculated.....Strictly Uncirculated...Choice Uncirculated...Gem Uncirculated.
Call something what you might, the price is the thing.That's the number associated with a coin,excepting the date or denomination,of course, that really matters to me when buying or selling. I don't need anyone telling me that the price I'm willing to pay for a coin is "not right" or "too much",etc. With the altitude... ?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably.
The money people have to pay for something really is the thing. Who is going to resubmit their coins to the TPG'S, coins that have already been slabbed using the current system?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Therein lies the biggest obstacle. However, I'm a firm believer in better ideas prevailing over tradition.
poor, fine, very fine, etc.. up to mint state.
number grades are just refining the idea to the point of never being consistent
due to too many grade levels (numbers).
but most people can agree if a coin is AU or not. but they hardly ever agree
if it is a 50-53-55 or 58.
once decided a coin is AU, let the market decide the price and therefore if it
is high, low, or middle end for the bracket.
a PCGS AU. pretty cool if you ask me. get rid of numbers.
<< <i>That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably. >>
To some registry weenies it would make a huge difference just as the difference between 65 and 66 (or 69 and 70) can today.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's just it. A one point shift wouldn't matter that much. It would create a gradient between values instead of 1 point bumps driving the price up considerably. >>
To some registry weenies it would make a huge difference just as the difference between 65 and 66 (or 69 and 70) can today. >>
The registry would have to change quite a bit for the new system to work. However, when the smoke clears, the best sets will still be at the top and the worst sets will still be at the bottom.
there's smoething very, very wrong with this....
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Copy the europeans, they already use it, tpg CGS in the UK . >>
YUP
<< <i>Good point but with a more descriptive grading system, new collectors would be better able to make more intelligent choices on how to spend their money. Alot of people come into the hobby and don't fully (or at all sometimes) understand what makes the grade of a coin. This results in unsatisfying purchases and can drive new collectors out of the hobby. >>
I don't see how a different scale will help new collectors.
If they would understand a new scale when it is explained to them, they would be able to understand the old scale when it was explained to them.
I believe that people are too neurotic over the number given to a coin in the first place.
A nice AU 58 with no distracting hits should be worth more than a low grade MS coin with
bad chatter and bag marks...D'Oh
Talk of a new grading system will surely help line the pockets of a portion of the numismatic community while taking the same amount out of the pockets of the other portion....namely collectors.
1-10 instead of the sheldon 1-60 now used, so a xf30 would become a 5, and a ms60 would be a 10.
Then the 10 numbers from 11-20 will replace the 10 numbers from 61-70. Thus a 65 becomes a 15.
Patent pending™
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I don't get your weighting of eye appeal as a 1.
One of the more important elements in my opinion.
You make an interesting case and I appreciate the thought you have given to improving grading. One issue that will always remain with a final, single numerical designation is that it cannot convey a true, complete picture of the coin (one would actually need separate designations for strike, luster, surface marks, and eye appeal).
BTW...In a later edition of the Brown and Dunn grading guide (5th edition, I believe) they proposed a complex grading/description code. It was rather complicated and had little chance of being adopted (but it is a funny read if you can locate a copy of the book).
As Julian mentioned, a numerical designation suggests a "defined" grade without subjectivity (although educated numismatists understand otherwise). Qualitative and quantitative grading are simply shorthand used between knowledgeable parties to help establish a price. Today, way too many collectors have relegated this understanding to third-party grading firms so that they do not need to learn how to grade but can rely blindly on others. But in the end, it is all about price and perceived value.
With your permission, may I borrow some of your thoughts for the next ANA grading course I teach?
Thanks...it's an interesting topic.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces