Would you support a Grading Service that graded strictly on Eye Appeal?

braddick

Give me a chance here for a moment- Suppose a Service like PCI or ICG were to change their holder (so you could tell them apart from older 'makes') and began to grade strictly on Eye Appeal- abandoning completely the technical grading other services use.
Now, remember: even 'Eye Appeal' grading is based, in part, on some form of technical grading. For example- there's no way a banged up MS60 even with fantastic toning would receive a super high grade. But, instead of relying solely, or mostly on the technical merits of the coin the total APPEAL is taken into play. Monster rainbow rim toning on the BTW? Well, it's no longer a simple MS64 (technical- it does have some chatter in the fields) but is now an MS67 because that is the MONEY this coin will demand.
I'm looking forward to your opinions. (Oh, I'm not stating I think this is a killer idea- I just wanted to run it by the collective minds on this forum first!)

solid

If a coin should technically receive a grade of MS66++++, then it should not be placed in an MS67 holder even if it is the most beautifully toned piece on earth. Let the marketplace determine its dollar value. Grading companies should stick to assigning its technical grade.

Ken

clevegreg

I think there is too much difference from service to service now! Eye appeal is way too subjective as can be seen with all of the threads in the past on white vs. toned coins. Just take a look at Heritage where they have the JH Exceptional coins. Some of them may be nice, but I find alot of them to be butt ugly.

Greg

Flash

I echo Solid's statements on this matter. Give a coin its technical grade and let the market determine the value for any good or bad aesthetic qualities it has.

pmh1nic

Braddick

Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your vacation and didn't drive your wife nuts stopping to browse at every coin shop you passed .

As you've mentioned the technical aspects of grading (marks, strike, luster, etc.) have a major bearing on eye appeal and to some extent are factored into the "technical" grade. Given the subjective nature of other issues affecting eye appeal (toning, attractiveness of the design features, etc.) I think allowing these things to affect the grade would just cause more confusion and disputes about grading. Let the other issues affecting eye appeal be judged individually by the buyer and be reflected in the price he's willing to pay.

keithdagen

Greg,

Find it funny that lately, a JH Exceptional gold piece means that it has a great strike with a grease mark or copper spot on the coin.

Pat,

I think that this is where the NGC * could play in. Let the grade of the coin be based upon traditional factors but add an * if the coin has a PQ eye appeal.

Keith

braddick

pmh1nic: Thanks the the welcome back. Believe it or not, I went the week without thinking too much about coins. We did see one coin shop in Carmel, but it was closed (sign in the window said the Dealer was at a show).
Now, regarding this thread: I don't expect all the services to do this. In fact, I'd be against it. But, it would seem to be a marketing nitch for one grading company! I think submissions for some coins would skyrocket for, say PCI as an example, if they began to grade like this and made a big public splash about doing so.
Maybe this would be the time for that same company to impliment the 100 point grading scale!
PCI would sure get market buzz if they went this route.

Refrema

I would be completly against it!
Eye appeal is too subjective to leave for one individual to decide. Just like art, who is to settle the question about what has eye appeal?

Bob

Keyrock

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I feel that is what I do when I purchase a coin. I preffer to determine my own eye appeal. For all I know the French judge could be doing the grading and we all know how subjective grading comes out.....

Strat

Isn't this idea what ICG promoted when they entered the grading business? Technical grading obviously comes into play, but I believe ICG heavily promoted the idea of eye appeal when they started their business. They wanted 'good looking' coins in their holders. This is just what I remember seeing in their ads, so if anyone can shed some light on this, that would be much appreciated.

oreville

We have strayed too far from technical grading as it is. Too much market grading bult in. Eye appeal like the others have said is too subjective.

For instance, I do not like toned Franklins no matter how gorgeous the color is for my set. It represents poor storage in the mint set to me and nothing else. Sure I do not mind a little toning which shows that the coin is original but I want to see the coin surfaces as struck and not hidden by excessive toning. I would never grade a coin higher because of great toning. That leads to overgrading.

Best,

Oreville

shirohniichan

How about just adding a "+" or "-" to the technical grade number to reflect good or poor eye-appeal? The majority would be without either mark, indicating that the eye-appeal is average for the assigned grade.

Steve27

This would just lead to more coins being dipped.