<< <i>when you hear frequent stories of the same coin coming back a 64 one day, a 65 the next, then a 66 another... I'm not sure there would be any real value to any +/- or decimalization of the current grading scale. I mean if it's not an exact enough science to get to the same whole number each time, why try to be more exact? >>
Exactly!
If the graders can't nail a whole number with any consistent accuracy or consensus, how does forcing them to micro-grade improve their accuracy?...they will just be having to "guess" in tinier increments. That doesn't mean they are "right". It is still just a few guys making their best attempt at a grade.
PCGS CLAIMS this will be the end all, be all announcement that is going to redo the way business is done. The plus/minus decimal system seems flat to me. I would think a non coin person would not be impressed either.
I would be willing to bet a dollar that most will be dissapointed with the big announcement.
Whatever the big deal is you can be sure it is designed to add money to their bottom line, on the 25th we will see how smart they are.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
Adrian,, good ideas from the home office in Colorado.
However, a couple of things that have always made me think about what PCGS might do.....
Years ago JA mentioned that a 'fund' made up of coins would be be of interest to Wall Street. I believe he mentioned $100 million would be a minimum amount that would be acceptable. I do not believe CA* has got to that point yet. PCGS could get to that point($100mm) very quickly.
With THREE TRILLION dollars of investors money sitting on the sidelines in the 'market'......how long do you think it would take a fund of currently graded $100 million worth of specially stickered PCGA FUND COINS to fully subscribe?
The fund is closed very quickly, PCGS has to regrade all the coins that are in it, PCGS acts as investment advisor and custodian. Nothing but money. And since those initial coins are off the market.....the coins that didn't make it...now become what is available to the casual collector-adding value to 'widgets' and thereby rendering that term obsolete.
I still remember back in 1985/1986 when CoinWorld ads shouted that the "grading problem has been solved." That was a big change indeed. But was it really permanently solved?
Considering that current grading repeatability is only on the order of 60-80%, imagine how low that will drop with decimal points tossed in? It's possible that getting the same grade on a 2nd submission could drop as low as 10-20%. Accuracy falls off the chart. And who would love it when the 2 pop tops for a coin are 66.7 and 66.8. Those 2 can fight it out for bragging rights with the 66.8 claiming it's value is 2X the 66.7 because it's the "finest." Serious buyers only buy the finest and pay up big time for that quality right?
CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
That's not how I see it. There would still be a need. It doesn't matter how many decimal points one jots down after the primary grade...let's say a MS65 as currently graded becomes:
65.2 or 65.26 or 65.269 or 65.2694 or 65.26946......etc.
Unless more graders look at the coins and for longer periods the accuracy will not change one bit. Hence that original 60-80% is still in play regardless of how many decimal points one tosses at it. That 65.2 coin can still be anything from a 64+ to a solid 65. Adding more decimals by itself doesn't increase accuracy one iota. And the TPG could simply label the coins as 65A or 65B or 65C to signify high end, solid, or low end. It still doesn't matter as another party could still disagree. A computer coming up with a decimal grade on marks, strike, or luster could be such an infrastructure change to increase the original grading accuracy/repeatability....assuming a good enough program were put into play.
I'd have to agree with Oreville about the likelihood of assigning a "-" sign to a grade or a "C" to denote low end. That would be the kiss of death for millions of coins. At least to date CAC has seen only a very limited # of coins. Don't expect PCGS or NGC to start adding "negative" signs to their grades. They might as well assign the next grade down before applying a "-" sign. And that won't be good for business either if tons of coins are being slammed. In effect it would be like eliminating the .0 to .3 area of the MS/PF grading structure...leaving only .4 to .9.
<< <i>PCGS CLAIMS this will be the end all, be all announcement that is going to redo the way business is done. The plus/minus decimal system seems flat to me. I would think a non coin person would not be impressed either.
I would be willing to bet a dollar that most will be dissapointed with the big announcement.
Whatever the big deal is you can be sure it is designed to add money to their bottom line, on the 25th we will see how smart they are. >>
Actually, regardless of what the announcement is, we might not know until well after the 25th "how smart they are".
<< <i>Coinguy1- I not sure pcgs even knew what the big one was going to be. They started the thread to get free ideas from the masses to right the ship. lol >>
Wouldn't that be funny---and sharp of them if it worked. --Jerry
I would also be disappointed if decimal or PQ grading became the norm. I also know that I for one would NOT resubmit anything in hopes of getting a new shiny .7 or .9 or + or whatever. I like my coins in the holders they are in right now just fine. In most cases I can tell all by myself just how PQ they are, and the prices they bring will surely concur.
<< <i>Just my two cents, but decimal grading or micro-grading is a complete and utter waste of time. In another 20 years will we "need" 65.55 or 63.78? How many decimal points will be eventually used? A line has to be drawn somewhere and we've done just fine with whole numbers for quite awhile. >>
A plus or a minus maybe, but decimals??? C'mon, it's an art, not a science!!
<< <i>I would also be disappointed if decimal or PQ grading became the norm. I also know that I for one would NOT resubmit anything in hopes of getting a new shiny .7 or .9 or + or whatever. I like my coins in the holders they are in right now just fine. In most cases I can tell all by myself just how PQ they are, and the prices they bring will surely concur. >>
Well that's sort of what happened marketwise when their sportscard division went to half grades in 2008. A lot of people didn't resubmit. However, those that did and received a "bump" reaped a windfall. However, there is a market in trying to seek out whole grade cards and trying to resubmit them for half grade bumps. You can see dealers especially doing this at auction................In the end PSA receives a lot of resubmissions looking for the .5 MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
To be honest the best thing PCGS could do is something that is anti-counterfeiting. Anything along the lines of customer confidence would be a big boost for everyone.
when you hear frequent stories of the same coin coming back a 64 one day, a 65 the next, then a 66 another... I'm not sure there would be any real value to any +/- or decimalization of the current grading scale. I mean if it's not an exact enough science to get to the same whole number each time, why try to be more exact?
Precisely!!
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
<< <i>I could see them maybe using a plus+ designation or some other symbol for PQ coins. I don't see them using a - symbol for non PQ coins though.
Kind of the same thing ngc does with the star designation >>
but NGC does not "do that" with their star coin program. Star coins are not designated for being PQ just for great eye appeal. I'm having deja vu allover again......MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Whatever the big announcement is will leave us all in shock and awe. There will be multiple threads congratulating PCGS and probably many of us will wonder why no one has "done it before", or at least, thought of the idea.
We will be both amazed and pleased and dare I say, proud. We will be inspired and joyous. We will consider PCGS visionaries.
The OP's original suggestions leave me with none of that. Good for PCGS, (maybe) but not really good for the rest of us and truly, the way this is all being positioned by PCGS, it'll have to, and will accomplish much more. Decimal grading? +/- grading? Really?
That would be like looking forward to your birthday all year long with a fabulous party promised and the day of the event turns out to be a couple of dudes from accounting with a cupcake and a single candle singing off-key.
I tend to think this is more plausible than the trivial garbage I have been reading in this thread and the one HRH started- but he has yet to tell you that you won the 1K so it has to be something totally off the wall for the company whose stock is still in the decline..
Need something to pick up the pace and make hundreds of thousands want to be apart of the parade in Ft.Worth.
I have very few MS Bust coins, so the decimal point grading would not change much for me. I do have a rather large group of MS Classic Commemorative. If the decimal grading starts, I will sell off my entire collection of Classic Commemoratives. This should tell you how I feel about decimal grading.
I collect Capped Bust series by variety in PCGS AU/MS grades.
Well, it that's "The Big One" then it will be "The Big Disappointment" after all the hype PCGS has been throwing around (this board, Coin World, the Numismatist, and another e-mail a couple days ago ("9 days until the Big One"!))
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.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same. And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
based on the discussions of a few years ago pertaining to the "100 point grading scale" it would be illogical for them to do what you propose. consider the + and - additions you mentioned; that would add 22 points to a 70 point scale and bring us to 92(in reality we'd be talking about 31 points because we already have MS/PR60- which is AU and there's no such thing as MS/PR70+ or better than perfect). grading from MS/PR60 through MS/PR70 by a factor of .2 would add 30 points and leave us at the more sensible and logical 100 point scale. >>
A decimal point grade cannot be supported. The grey sheet would have to have 33 columns of information per coin. There are not enough dealers or dealer money to support a decimal point scale. A dealer is not going to post a bid on MS65.2, MS65.4, MS65.6 etc. on any trading network, nor are collectors going to pay a premium for an MS65.4 versus and MS65.6.
I suggest the grading services go back to UNC, BU, CH BU, GEM BU and cut out everything in between
With all due respect......decimal system or even a +/- system? Not a chance. If this happens, I'll lose a great deal of respect for PCGS. First of all, grading is an opinion based on experience and standards. The minute someone says that they can delineate a 62+ vs a 63- is the day that I'll ask for a copy of the grading standards and the reference set. I doubt it, buth then again, I'm not a visionary.
FYI...CLCT has quadrupled in price in the last 18 month. In addition, they are paying $.25 per share in dividends per quarter ($1.00 p/a) I for one, am very satisfied with their stock performance and have tripled my $$$$$ so far.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology. >>
"Decimal grading will be a part of the scene in the near future. When is left to the next David Hall and the next big chapter in coins.
Replicability requires it and the natural evolution of many things connected to humans is that of refinement and organization.
Furthermore, consensus grading makes no sense.
Consensus grading is one guy who grades coins with two other guys who advise him. What kind of crap is that? No wonder no one can grade coins consistently
If one guy is really grading the coins, the coins get graded according to one guy's standard.
If 10 guys grade a coin and their opinions are averaged together, the opinions mirror the marketplace. The grades of liberal graders will be ameliorated by the grades of the conservative graders and the top of the bell shaped curve, which represents the norm, the bulk of the market and how it determines values, will be the grade assigned.
Instead of one coin being graded 20 times to get maxed out (20 times 30 = $600), and eventually overgraded, coins will be graded once or twice (2 times 100 = 200) but it will be done right the first time.
An additional decimal point decreases the differences between subsequent gradings.
You guys are smart....think about this. It will eventually settle into the mind of an enterprising individual who takes us to the next level.
<< <i>I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology. >>
Just what the world needs, more gradations in grading. Add the decimals. Increase the hairline criteria. Seriously, the only way this makes any sense is to start "machine grading." Get rid of the humans and their inherent subjectivity. Heck, we have had technology on our fruit and vegetable lines for decades capable of sorting out the culls, grading the ultra primo MS 70 peaches to go to the 5th Avenue Fruit Stand, and siphoning off the AU50 fruit for the canner. Bring in the lasers, the spectrometers, the proof reflectors. Time to replace human eye appeal with laser eye appeal. Best of all submission times will now contract since it will only take a few nanoseconds for the light and sonic rays to do their thing. Now this would be the announcement worthy of all the suspense.
"when you hear frequent stories of the same coin coming back a 64 one day, a 65 the next, then a 66 another... I'm not sure there would be any real value to any +/- or decimalization of the current grading scale. I mean if it's not an exact enough science to get to the same whole number each time, why try to be more exact? "
The problem with inconsistency is consensus grading as it exists. Once you go to blind weighted average decimal grading (to one decimal) YOU LOSE MOST OF THAT VARIABILITY!!!!! If the coin is graded by blind weighted average decimal grading and it comes back a 65.7, chances are, when graded again using the same methodology, it will come back around +/_ about .2 (plus or minus two tenths of a grade.)
Having the grade bounce around between 65.5 annd 65.9 is WAY, WAY better than having the coin bounce around between 64 and 66.
"Unless more graders look at the coins and for longer periods the accuracy will not change one bit"
A good grader can grade a coin on average in about 15 seconds.
When you look at Claudia Schiffer, how long does it take you to conclude she's about a 9.5?
(At first, you'll think: "hmmm.......damn, Claudia Schiffer..... she's a 10....", but then you think...."Well, wait a minute, she can't be perfect.....but gee williker, she is damn close to perfect.....hmmmmm.....Ok, we'll call her a 9.5......"...and what does that take about 2 seconds???????)
How long does it take you to conclude that Al Roker rolls in at around a 2? Probably not quite the ugliest man around, but it might take some time to find one uglier.
"Don't expect PCGS or NGC to start adding "negative" signs to their grades"
That's a really good point that I had not thought of. So, maybe they will just consider adding or not adding a plus sign which would effectively be equal to a CAC sticker.
"They're just going to announce that they will be opening a branch office in Costa Rica."
That would be so cool. I miss the days when I would meet Paul Simonetti down at Heritage and we would do business and then go out and smoke a......uh....uh....smoke a.....I forgot what I was going to say......sorry.
Comments
<< <i>when you hear frequent stories of the same coin coming back a 64 one day, a 65 the next, then a 66 another... I'm not sure there would be any real value to any +/- or decimalization of the current grading scale. I mean if it's not an exact enough science to get to the same whole number each time, why try to be more exact? >>
Exactly!
If the graders can't nail a whole number with any consistent accuracy or consensus, how does forcing them to micro-grade improve their accuracy?...they will just be having to "guess" in tinier increments. That doesn't mean they are "right". It is still just a few guys making their best attempt at a grade.
......I collect old stuff......
I would be willing to bet a dollar that most will be dissapointed with the big announcement.
Whatever the big deal is you can be sure it is designed to add money to their bottom line, on the 25th we will see how smart they are.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
good ideas from the home office in Colorado.
However, a couple of things that have always made me think about what PCGS might do.....
Years ago JA mentioned that a 'fund' made up of coins would be be of interest to Wall Street. I believe he mentioned $100 million would be a minimum amount that would be acceptable. I do not believe CA* has got to that point yet.
PCGS could get to that point($100mm) very quickly.
With THREE TRILLION dollars of investors money sitting on the sidelines in the 'market'......how long do you think it would take a fund of currently graded $100 million worth of specially stickered PCGA FUND COINS to fully subscribe?
The fund is closed very quickly, PCGS has to regrade all the coins that are in it, PCGS acts as investment advisor and custodian. Nothing but money. And since those initial coins are off the market.....the coins that didn't make it...now become what is available to the casual collector-adding value to 'widgets' and thereby rendering that term obsolete.
The securitization of the coin biz.
Considering that current grading repeatability is only on the order of 60-80%, imagine how low that will drop with decimal points tossed in? It's possible that getting the same grade on a 2nd submission could drop as low as 10-20%. Accuracy falls off the chart. And who would love it when the 2 pop tops for a coin are 66.7 and 66.8. Those 2 can fight it out for bragging rights with the 66.8 claiming it's value is 2X the 66.7 because it's the "finest." Serious buyers only buy the finest and pay up big time for that quality right?
CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
That's not how I see it. There would still be a need. It doesn't matter how many decimal points one jots down after the primary grade...let's say a MS65 as currently graded becomes:
65.2 or 65.26 or 65.269 or 65.2694 or 65.26946......etc.
Unless more graders look at the coins and for longer periods the accuracy will not change one bit. Hence that original 60-80% is still in play regardless of how many decimal points one tosses at it. That 65.2 coin can still be anything from a 64+ to a solid 65. Adding more decimals by itself doesn't increase accuracy one iota. And the TPG could simply label the coins as 65A or 65B or 65C to signify high end, solid, or low end. It still doesn't matter as another party could still disagree. A computer coming up with a decimal grade on marks, strike, or luster could be such an infrastructure change to increase the original grading accuracy/repeatability....assuming a good enough program were put into play.
I'd have to agree with Oreville about the likelihood of assigning a "-" sign to a grade or a "C" to denote low end. That would be the kiss of death for millions of coins. At least to date CAC has seen only a very limited # of coins. Don't expect PCGS or NGC to start adding "negative" signs to their grades. They might as well assign the next grade down before applying a "-" sign. And that won't be good for business either if tons of coins are being slammed. In effect it would be like eliminating the .0 to .3 area of the MS/PF grading structure...leaving only .4 to .9.
roadrunner
<< <i>PCGS CLAIMS this will be the end all, be all announcement that is going to redo the way business is done. The plus/minus decimal system seems flat to me. I would think a non coin person would not be impressed either.
I would be willing to bet a dollar that most will be dissapointed with the big announcement.
Whatever the big deal is you can be sure it is designed to add money to their bottom line, on the 25th we will see how smart they are. >>
Actually, regardless of what the announcement is, we might not know until well after the 25th "how smart they are".
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Coinguy1- I not sure pcgs even knew what the big one was going to be. They started the thread to get free ideas from the masses to right the ship. lol >>
Wouldn't that be funny---and sharp of them if it worked. --Jerry
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>Just my two cents, but decimal grading or micro-grading is a complete and utter waste of time. In another 20 years will we "need" 65.55 or 63.78? How many decimal points will be eventually used? A line has to be drawn somewhere and we've done just fine with whole numbers for quite awhile. >>
A plus or a minus maybe, but decimals??? C'mon, it's an art, not a science!!
It would seem logical that they would at least do a grading upgrade(for lack of a better word) to beat CAC to its own punch.......
this could get crazy, what would NGC do?, OMG, and ANACS
does anyone just "collect" coins anymore
<< <i>I would also be disappointed if decimal or PQ grading became the norm. I also know that I for one would NOT resubmit anything in hopes of getting a new shiny .7 or .9 or + or whatever. I like my coins in the holders they are in right now just fine. In most cases I can tell all by myself just how PQ they are, and the prices they bring will surely concur. >>
Well that's sort of what happened marketwise when their sportscard division went to half grades in 2008. A lot of people didn't resubmit. However, those that did and received a "bump" reaped a windfall. However, there is a market in trying to seek out whole grade cards and trying to resubmit them for half grade bumps. You can see dealers especially doing this at auction................In the end PSA receives a lot of resubmissions looking for the .5 MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Nah, nothing so elaborate.
They're just going to announce that they will
be opening a branch office in Costa Rica.
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Kind of the same thing ngc does with the star designation
If they do adopt the plus or minus designation,or the decimal system.I could see a boost in the circulated coin submissions.
Just a thought.
....very interesting thread.
Rob
when you hear frequent stories of the same coin coming back a 64 one day, a 65 the next, then a 66 another... I'm not sure there would be any real value to any +/- or decimalization of the current grading scale. I mean if it's not an exact enough science to get to the same whole number each time, why try to be more exact?
Precisely!!
<< <i>Unfortunately I am in the United States right now, Colorado to be exact. >>
Could be worse.
Welcome back.
<< <i>I could see them maybe using a plus+ designation or some other symbol for PQ coins. I don't see them using a - symbol for non PQ coins though.
Kind of the same thing ngc does with the star designation
but NGC does not "do that" with their star coin program. Star coins are not designated for being PQ just for great eye appeal. I'm having deja vu allover again......MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>veddy, veddy , interesting my good sir
It would seem logical that they would at least do a grading upgrade(for lack of a better word) to beat CAC to its own punch.......
this could get crazy, what would NGC do?, OMG, and ANACS
does anyone just "collect" coins anymore
Not if you're into Moderns .... it's the slab that counts along with the First Strike or First Issued Label
Having a decimal, plus or minus for the grade, would be .. wow ... I can see it now...PR70.5 FS
We will be both amazed and pleased and dare I say, proud. We will be inspired and joyous. We will consider PCGS visionaries.
The OP's original suggestions leave me with none of that.
Good for PCGS, (maybe) but not really good for the rest of us and truly, the way this is all being positioned by PCGS, it'll have to, and will accomplish much more. Decimal grading? +/- grading? Really?
That would be like looking forward to your birthday all year long with a fabulous party promised and the day of the event turns out to be a couple of dudes from accounting with a cupcake and a single candle singing off-key.
peacockcoins
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>merger >>
Seriously, whom do you think they would merge with and for what reason? It wont be a merger.
<< <i>merger >>
I tend to think this is more plausible than the trivial garbage I have been reading in this thread and the one HRH started- but he has yet to tell you that you won the 1K so it has to be something totally off the wall for the company whose stock is still in the decline..
Need something to pick up the pace and make hundreds of thousands want to be apart of the parade in Ft.Worth.
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.
I hope youre not referring to CLCT, that stock is certainly NOT in the decline!!
check CLCT on yahoo finance, and you will see that the increase in stock price has been astonishing over the past year.
we should only hope our COINS would have appreciated in value as quickly as CLCT stock has!!
BTW, investors, and especially shorts, know a LOT more about this company than we collectors do. they are rather bullish.
<< <i>::company whose stock is still in the decline..::
I hope youre not referring to CLCT, that stock is certainly NOT in the decline!!
check CLCT on yahoo finance, and you will see that the increase in stock price has been astonishing over the past year.
we should only hope our COINS would have appreciated in value as quickly as CLCT stock has!!
BTW, investors, and especially shorts, know a LOT more about this company than we collectors do. they are rather bullish. >>
better check with your broker again..
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=CLCT&selected=CLCT
it is down and has been for awhile now.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
based on the discussions of a few years ago pertaining to the "100 point grading scale" it would be illogical for them to do what you propose. consider the + and - additions you mentioned; that would add 22 points to a 70 point scale and bring us to 92(in reality we'd be talking about 31 points because we already have MS/PR60- which is AU and there's no such thing as MS/PR70+ or better than perfect). grading from MS/PR60 through MS/PR70 by a factor of .2 would add 30 points and leave us at the more sensible and logical 100 point scale. >>
A decimal point grade cannot be supported. The grey sheet would have to have 33 columns of information per coin. There are not enough dealers or dealer money to support a decimal point scale. A dealer is not going to post a bid on MS65.2, MS65.4, MS65.6 etc. on any trading network, nor are collectors going to pay a premium for an MS65.4 versus and MS65.6.
I suggest the grading services go back to UNC, BU, CH BU, GEM BU and cut out everything in between
TRUTH
last column in the adjusted close, these figures are weekly.
15-Mar-10 10.58 10.94 10.38 10.50 27,100 10.50
8-Mar-10 10.10 10.67 9.92 10.58 55,600 10.58
1-Mar-10 9.78 10.10 9.65 10.10 20,700 10.10
22-Feb-10 9.40 10.14 9.35 9.51 20,700 9.51
16-Feb-10 9.36 9.45 9.22 9.40 16,100 9.40
8-Feb-10 9.60 9.70 9.05 9.44 24,700 9.44
4-Feb-10 $ 0.25 Dividend
1-Feb-10 9.62 9.63 9.05 9.11 15,700 9.11
25-Jan-10 9.67 9.70 9.45 9.53 11,700 9.28
19-Jan-10 9.70 9.74 9.52 9.64 11,000 9.39
11-Jan-10 9.95 9.99 9.51 9.69 10,500 9.44
4-Jan-10 9.17 9.94 9.16 9.77 18,900 9.52
28-Dec-09 8.97 9.36 8.73 9.35 18,600 9.11
21-Dec-09 8.70 9.40 8.52 8.97 16,700 8.74
14-Dec-09 8.64 9.13 8.30 8.52 39,100 8.30
7-Dec-09 9.34 9.47 8.50 8.70 16,700 8.47
30-Nov-09 9.50 9.50 8.52 9.44 29,000 9.19
23-Nov-09 9.06 9.95 8.95 9.49 57,800 9.24
16-Nov-09 9.00 9.03 8.84 8.98 28,400 8.75
9-Nov-09 8.85 9.57 8.20 8.82 45,000 8.59
6-Nov-09 $ 0.25 Dividend
2-Nov-09 7.60 8.50 7.48 8.41 46,800 8.19
26-Oct-09 6.03 7.70 5.95 7.48 144,500 7.07
19-Oct-09 5.85 5.89 5.46 5.50 7,500 5.20
12-Oct-09 5.61 6.20 5.61 5.78 18,700 5.46
5-Oct-09 5.52 5.70 5.49 5.65 11,000 5.34
28-Sep-09 5.45 5.62 5.43 5.48 10,200 5.18
21-Sep-09 5.47 5.89 5.45 5.52 8,600 5.22
14-Sep-09 5.00 5.95 5.00 5.46 65,500 5.16
8-Sep-09 4.74 4.97 4.74 4.93 36,000 4.66
31-Aug-09 4.60 4.89 4.51 4.70 22,700 4.44
24-Aug-09 4.11 4.74 4.09 4.65 26,900 4.39
17-Aug-09 4.18 4.20 3.99 4.11 11,200 3.88
10-Aug-09 4.24 4.25 4.00 4.09 15,600 3.86
3-Aug-09 4.11 4.44 3.99 4.18 9,500 3.95
27-Jul-09 4.03 4.26 4.03 4.07 14,400 3.85
20-Jul-09 4.11 4.27 3.99 4.05 55,300 3.83
13-Jul-09 4.56 4.58 4.05 4.10 105,100 3.87
6-Jul-09 4.87 4.93 4.56 4.60 14,900 4.35
29-Jun-09 4.95 5.00 4.54 5.00 17,900 4.72
22-Jun-09 4.70 4.96 4.68 4.90 26,300 4.63
15-Jun-09 4.85 4.85 4.65 4.70 118,900 4.44
8-Jun-09 4.90 5.00 4.75 4.84 48,800 4.57
1-Jun-09 4.66 5.65 4.51 4.90 92,500 4.63
26-May-09 4.65 4.81 4.50 4.51 9,300 4.26
18-May-09 4.20 4.65 4.20 4.64 13,000 4.38
11-May-09 4.52 4.60 4.06 4.12 12,100 3.89
4-May-09 3.95 4.80 3.86 4.21 57,900 3.98
27-Apr-09 4.00 4.03 3.85 3.98 19,700 3.76
20-Apr-09 3.97 4.16 3.91 3.99 8,900 3.77
13-Apr-09 4.13 4.13 3.79 3.93 16,300 3.71
6-Apr-09 4.10 4.10 3.86 4.03 8,000 3.81
30-Mar-09 3.79 4.20 3.79 4.11 37,200 3.88
23-Mar-09 3.89 4.16 3.67 3.82 23,800 3.61
16-Mar-09 3.58 4.35 3.54 3.91 37,400 3.69
9-Mar-09 3.27 3.78 3.08 3.53 20,100 3.34
2-Mar-09 3.51 3.52 3.05 3.38 21,200 3.19
23-Feb-09 3.26 3.59 3.05 3.58 12,100 3.38
17-Feb-09 3.71 3.71 3.30 3.53 18,600 3.34
9-Feb-09 3.73 3.96 3.54 3.71 19,400 3.51
2-Feb-09 4.00 4.03 3.41 3.52 29,200 3.33
26-Jan-09 3.60 3.89 3.60 3.88 11,100 3.67
20-Jan-09 3.10 4.25 3.10 3.81 36,700 3.60
12-Jan-09 3.00 3.10 2.79 3.05 17,300 2.88
5-Jan-09 2.64 3.06 2.64 3.05 18,400 2.88
29-Dec-08 2.53 2.96 2.05 2.64 49,300 2.49
22-Dec-08 2.99 3.11 2.50 2.55 69,100 2.41
15-Dec-08 2.85 3.00 2.64 3.00 31,800 2.83
12-Dec-08 2.77 2.83 2.70 2.79 13,500 2.64
* Close price adjusted for dividends and splits.
First | Prev | Next | Last
keoj
Camelot
<< <i>Computer grading? >>
Well, I give Dell laptop a B- and my Mac an A.
Kind of like that?
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>::company whose stock is still in the decline..::
I hope youre not referring to CLCT, that stock is certainly NOT in the decline!!
check CLCT on yahoo finance, and you will see that the increase in stock price has been astonishing over the past year.
we should only hope our COINS would have appreciated in value as quickly as CLCT stock has!!
BTW, investors, and especially shorts, know a LOT more about this company than we collectors do. they are rather bullish. >>
better check with your broker again..
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=CLCT&selected=CLCT
it is down and has been for awhile now. >>
FYI...CLCT has quadrupled in price in the last 18 month. In addition, they are paying $.25 per share in dividends per quarter ($1.00 p/a)
I for one, am very satisfied with their stock performance and have tripled my $$$$$ so far.
What might that be?
<< <i>I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology. >>
"Decimal grading will be a part of the scene in the near future. When is left to the next David Hall and the next big chapter in coins.
Replicability requires it and the natural evolution of many things connected to humans is that of refinement and organization.
Furthermore, consensus grading makes no sense.
Consensus grading is one guy who grades coins with two other guys who advise him. What kind of crap is that? No wonder no one can grade coins consistently
If one guy is really grading the coins, the coins get graded according to one guy's standard.
If 10 guys grade a coin and their opinions are averaged together, the opinions mirror the marketplace. The grades of liberal graders will
be ameliorated by the grades of the conservative graders and the top of the bell shaped curve, which represents the norm, the bulk of
the market and how it determines values, will be the grade assigned.
Instead of one coin being graded 20 times to get maxed out (20 times 30 = $600), and eventually overgraded, coins will be graded
once or twice (2 times 100 = 200) but it will be done right the first time.
An additional decimal point decreases the differences between subsequent gradings.
You guys are smart....think about this. It will eventually settle into the mind of an enterprising individual who takes us to the next level.
adrian "
<< <i>Is he offering $1000 to anyone who correctly predicts their announcement? >>
Yes but you have to post your guesses in the correct thread.
<< <i>I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology. >>
Just what the world needs, more gradations in grading. Add the decimals. Increase the hairline criteria. Seriously, the only way this makes any sense is to start "machine grading." Get rid of the humans and their inherent subjectivity. Heck, we have had technology on our fruit and vegetable lines for decades capable of sorting out the culls, grading the ultra primo MS 70 peaches to go to the 5th Avenue Fruit Stand, and siphoning off the AU50 fruit for the canner. Bring in the lasers, the spectrometers, the proof reflectors. Time to replace human eye appeal with laser eye appeal. Best of all submission times will now contract since it will only take a few nanoseconds for the light and sonic rays to do their thing. Now this would be the announcement worthy of all the suspense.
The problem with inconsistency is consensus grading as it exists. Once you go to blind weighted average decimal grading (to one decimal) YOU LOSE MOST OF THAT VARIABILITY!!!!! If the coin is graded by blind weighted average decimal grading and it comes back a 65.7, chances are, when graded again using the same methodology, it will come back around +/_ about .2 (plus or minus two tenths of a grade.)
Having the grade bounce around between 65.5 annd 65.9 is WAY, WAY better than having the coin bounce around between 64 and 66.
HOLA!!!!
A good grader can grade a coin on average in about 15 seconds.
When you look at Claudia Schiffer, how long does it take you to conclude she's about a 9.5?
(At first, you'll think: "hmmm.......damn, Claudia Schiffer..... she's a 10....", but then you think...."Well, wait a minute, she can't be perfect.....but gee williker, she is damn close to perfect.....hmmmmm.....Ok, we'll call her a 9.5......"...and what does that take about 2 seconds???????)
How long does it take you to conclude that Al Roker rolls in at around a 2? Probably not quite the ugliest man around, but it might take some time to find one uglier.
That's a really good point that I had not thought of. So, maybe they will just consider adding or not adding a plus sign which would effectively be equal to a CAC sticker.
be opening a branch office in Costa Rica."
That would be so cool. I miss the days when I would meet Paul Simonetti down at Heritage and we would do business and then go out and smoke a......uh....uh....smoke a.....I forgot what I was going to say......sorry.
Good one.