Here I go again asking a stupid question: 100 point grading system

ocon4008

I know I am new to collecting and what is worse I am an egghead number cruncher who loves physics, but I do not get the aversion to a 100 point grading system. They are two linear scales and converting between them is easier than converting a Celsius temperature to a Fahrenheit temperature because the starting points are both 0.

The 70 point scale used today has 70 increments (duh); the 100 point scale will have 100 increments (duh). The math could not be simpler; for every 1 point increase on the 70 point scale equates to a 1.4286 increase on the 100 point scale. Therefore,

New Grade (100 scale) = Old Grade (70 scale) x 1.4286

Old Grade (70 scale) = New Grade (100 scale) x 0.70

A VF 30 becomes 42.5, AU 50 becomes 71.5 and MS 63 becomes 90.0, etc …..

IMHO the larger difference in between increments will allow the grader to offer an opinion on the quality of the coin over the present system. For example:

MS 65 low end (no sticker) = 92.9

MS 65 middle (green sticker) = 93.5

MS 65 high end (gold sticker) = 94.1

MS 66 low end (no sticker) = 94.3

OK, flame suit on; let me have it. At least I am not advocating professional licenses this time.

Robb

The 70 point scale does not have 70 increments.

LoveMyLiberty

Please don't go there! We had a major battle over this years ago.

Bear

Even If I use my toes, I just can not count that high.
We can make modifications the the 70 point scale that
would solve the problem of coins nice for the grade with
minimal disruption. That is except, for another grading fee.

PerryHall

We don't need no stinkin 100 point grading system.

Steve27

Since not all values are used by the 70-point system, your logic fails. In order to properly map from old to new you only need a one-to-one mapping of 30 values. Here's how the 100 point system could work vice the 70:

(Old/New)

PO 1 = 1
FR 2 = 5
AG 3 = 7
G 4 = 10
G 6 = 15
VG 8= 20
VG 10 = 30
F 12 = 40
F 15 = 45
VF 20 = 50
VF 25 = 55
VF 30 = 60
VF 35 = 65
EF 40 = 70
EF 45 = 75
AU 50 = 80
AU 53 = 83
AU 55 = 85
AU 58 = 88
MS 60 = 90
MS 61 = 91
MS 62 = 92
MS 63 = 93
MS 64 = 94
MS 65 = 95
MS 66 = 96
MS 67 = 97
MS 68 = 98
MS 69 = 99
MS 70 = 100

magikbilly

Hi there,

from my own myopic vantage, I do not care what they do. Same coins to me. I'm still gonna buy the ones I like that meet my criteria and that I can afford. I don't uh... submit...so I don't pay any fees anyway.

Best,
Eric

ricko

This entire 'grading' phenomena has gone completely out of control. There are loose standards (no firm, measurable criteria) for grading the strike/quality of coins. Then we enter into 'eye appeal' territory, which is has no real definition since it is based on personal perception - so even less a measurable criteria. It matters not one whit what number system is used or how many subdivisions may be added... unless the criteria are firmly defined, it is all left, in the final analysis, to perception. A general agreement 'may' be reached among a small group of 'informed' individuals, which, upon examination by another group of 'informed' individuals, may change. That is NOT standards. In the standards world, an inch is defined and repeatable (as is a centimeter etc). Aesthetics are NOT definable in hard, measurable, repeatable, standard bound criteria. Until such a system is derived, the 'mine is better than yours' contests will continue with all the strife and bickering we see today. Cheers, RickO

jmcu12

"The 70 point scale does not have 70 increments"

yes it does, we just don't use all of them.

ocon4008

<<This entire 'grading' phenomena has gone completely out of control. There are loose standards (no firm, measurable criteria) for grading the strike/quality of coins. Then we enter into 'eye appeal' territory, which is has no real definition since it is based on personal perception - so even less a measurable criteria. It matters not one whit what number system is used or how many subdivisions may be added... unless the criteria are firmly defined, it is all left, in the final analysis, to perception. A general agreement 'may' be reached among a small group of 'informed' individuals, which, upon examination by another group of 'informed' individuals, may change. That is NOT standards. In the standards world, an inch is defined and repeatable (as is a centimeter etc). Aesthetics are NOT definable in hard, measurable, repeatable, standard bound criteria. Until such a system is derived, the 'mine is better than yours' contests will continue with all the strife and bickering we see today.>>

Excellent points RickO. I believe the technology exists to quantify strike and wear through the use of detail terrain modeling; therefore, we can standardize the technical aspect of coin grading. I concede that "luster" and "eye appeal" are subjective, and I have no clue how to standardize them other than cloning one grader for use by all.

Which of course will start the argument which grader will we clone.

magikbilly

Hi there,

if we can clone graders, I'd start by making more on the other side of the plastic!

Best,
Eric

Mercury10c

Why? What will 100 points do that 70 doesn't do? We don't use all 70 of the grades, and we certaninly won't use all 100 if there is a 100 point system.

astrostu

What if we went to a 50-pt grading system instead? Then it would still be closer to a nice multiple of base-10 and we would be more likely to use all the numbers.

dbldie55

I love numbers too, so lets just make is a scale of 1 to 1,000,000.

What do stickers have to do with grades?

Sounds like another case of: If it ain't broken, break it. Seems to be a common theme these days.

Aegis3

It is clear that the numerals in numerical grading do not mean anything beyond being abbreviations for descriptive grades. All that is needed is that they are ordered the same way as the descriptive grades are understood to be. I thus propose this new scale:
Basal state (obsolete "1") shall be [sqrt(2)]/(e*pi)
The highest circulated grade (obsolete "58") shall be: [e*sqrt(2)]/pi
The lowest uncirculated grade (obsolete "60") shall be: [pi*sqrt(2)]/e
The closest real grade to the theoretical perfect grade (obsolete "69") shall be: (e^pi)^(sqrt[2])
The theoretical perfect grade (obsolete "70") shall be: e^{pi^[sqrt(2)]}

All intermediate grades can quickly be derived whatever way you like.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

This, of course, assumes the grader knows how to distinguish a high end piece from a low end one. Certainly, it's easy to tell a choice 65 morgan from a lowsy one, but what about a choice 63 C-Mint $5 vs a lowsy one?

Bear

Ahhh, I can see it now......98.9765421. Man, that is precise grading.

divecchia

<< <i>Hi there,

from my own myopic vantage, I do not care what they do. Same coins to me. I'm still gonna buy the ones I like that meet my criteria and that I can afford. I don't uh... submit...so I don't pay any fees anyway.

Best,
Eric >>



Well put. Buy the coin not the holder...Donato

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

<< <i>I love numbers too, so lets just make is a scale of 1 to 1,000,000.

What do stickers have to do with grades?

Sounds like another case of: If it ain't broken, break it. Seems to be a common theme these days. >>






The OP isn't urging the use of a hundred point scale. He's just wondering why there is such a public outcry when it is suggested.

I tend to agree. It's just another scale. 100kph or 62mph. either way, it's the same speed.

A Rose Farthing by any other name...

ChrisRx

My goodness...

Why not just use A+ to F.

RegistryCoin

Lotsa of numbers before the decimal or after, doesn't matter with a randomly unstandardized Moot Point Grading System.

ocon4008

<<The OP isn't urging the use of a hundred point scale. He's just wondering why there is such a public outcry when it is suggested.

I tend to agree. It's just another scale. 100kph or 62mph. either way, it's the same speed.

A Rose Farthing by any other name... >>

Mr. McNumbthumbs you are a man of true vision. What's in a number if the two are equal; Confucius said "everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it."

ocon4008

<<This, of course, assumes the grader knows how to distinguish a high end piece from a low end one. >>

Are not all graders just offering their opinion on a coin? If everyone agreed all the time there would be no crack-out game.

RWB

Sheldon's scale was not linear and it was more of a value estimating tool than condition.

DeepCoin

They are all still better than the BU, Gem BU system used 40 years ago where the coin's grade depended mostly upon whether you were selling or buying from a dealer. Any numeric system has a certain utility and 70 has been the custom for a long time. Of course this country is still using inches and pounds instead of metric measurements, so I would expect resistance to a scale based upon 100.

PerryHall

TTT for seateddime who just started another thread on this subject.

johnny9434

Leave it alone. Why look for trouble when ya got a good thing already, unless theres $$$ involved in the process

PerryHall

<< <i>Leave it alone. Why look for trouble when ya got a good thing already, unless theres $$$ involved in the process >>



If the slabbers go to a 100 point grading system, it will be to make a ton of money off all the suckers who will resubmit their already slabbed coins to be regraded and reslabbed.

LindeDad

<< <i>The 70 point scale does not have 70 increments. >>



And 90% of the collectors want 100% of the coins in the top ten grades but only 1% can afford them.