I Would Prefer 100 Point Grading System Over "+" Designations
Stuart
Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭✭✭
On the grading side of this announcement, I would have preferred to see PCGS finally adopt the 100 Point Grading System to allow more grading numerical designations at the upper end of the grading scale, rather than implementing the "+" system.
Once PCGS decided to change their grading system, why not start over and do it correctly rather than use a band-aid "+" sign...
Any one else want to share your thoughts on this?
Once PCGS decided to change their grading system, why not start over and do it correctly rather than use a band-aid "+" sign...
Any one else want to share your thoughts on this?
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
0
Comments
Camelot
<< <i>On the grading side of this announcement, I would have preferred to see PCGS finally adopt the 100 Point Grading System to allow more grading numerical designations at the upper end of the grading scale, rather than implementing the "+" system.
Once PCGS decided to change their grading system, why not start over and do it correctly rather than use a band-aid "+" sign...
Any one else want to share your thoughts on this? >>
Really?? 100 point system?? We currently only use 22 of the 70 possible grades. Do you feel like we need another 30?
I say we (including TPG's) should all learn how to use the 70 point grading system we have now, before we venture into more points. But if we must, why not just split the top 10 points (60-70) into halves? 60, 60.5, 61, 61.5)
@Largecents on twitter
I dislike the 100 point grading system even more!!
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Snaz: I agree that where we could use some additional grades is at the high end of the grading scale, above AU-55. I had also considered the option that you suggested, of splitting the higher level grading points into half increments. AU-55 to MS-70 incorporates 16 grading levels, which could be split into 32.
I personally feel that there may be more need to use the available numerical grades between AU-55 and MS-60, as I see a lot of inconsistency in these high-end AU coins. I'd like to see the use of AU-56, 57 and 59, which would allow us three more incremental AU grades within the current 70 point grading system.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
66+ no bean = 66.7
66+ green bean = 66.8
66+ gold bean = 66.9
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Short of computer grading, I don't think there is enough consistency at the current levels of 55-70.
No shot at the pro graders, but they have shown time and time again that they grade to a range as is seen
with examples of a coin being sent in several times and receiving several grades (Russ used to post some great examples of this).
Expanding the scale with the present system would just expand the range IMO.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Anyway, who ever is selling the coin will tell you the coin is undergraded or an upgrade candidate. Please pay me max dollars.
I would prefer a step in the other direction. Eliminate the numerical grade and simply tell me the coin is authentic and AU/BU and let the market determine the value of the coin.
<< <i>Is it asking too much to request an exact grade? Adding a plus means what exactly. A 64 is really 64.5 or 64.6 or 64.9.
Anyway, who ever is selling the coin will tell you the coin is undergraded or an upgrade candidate. Please pay me max dollars.
I would prefer I step in the other direction. Eliminate the numerical grade and simply tell me the coin is authentic and AU/BU and let the market determine the value of the coin. >>
But, but what about the BiG OnE™ do you want to do away with SecurePlus™ and the extra money PCGS deserves for this inventive idea?
and beginners -- you know, the people we NEED to have for our hobby to survive. We don't have
to use all 100 numbers, the same as we do not use all 70 numbers now.
Mention to a non-collector that our current grading system uses a 1 - 70 range, with big gaps
in the lower numbers and every number but 59 in use from 58 through 70, and wait for the
reaction. I have had people tell me that the diamond rating system makes more sense than the
Sheldon scale.
Of course, I did not think that a 100 point scale was part of the announcement -- it certainly does
not qualify as "out of left field" and could not possibly have taken months to formulate. A couple of
hours, maybe, but certainly not months.
It sounds as if they are running a trial on the technology using a limited high value market. We will see if it works (pays for it self) and becomes more economical.
<< <i>I wonder how CAC will handle them?
66+ no bean = 66.7
66+ green bean = 66.8
66+ gold bean = 66.9 >>
I thought it was more like:
66+ no bean = 66.7
66+ green bean = 66.8
66+ gold bean = 67.1
<< <i>Is it asking too much to request an exact grade? Adding a plus means what exactly. A 64 is really 64.5 or 64.6 or 64.9. >>
Maybe it means that a 65.1 or 65.0 now gets a 64+ on those coins with a price gap between 64 and 65?
Bring on the 100 point grading system! PLEASE!
But as I've said before, if market grading is *the* standard and the market expects the number on the slab to price the coin, we should also be seeing AU-61 through AU-63 grades for the supersliders to reflect the fact that many of the very best choice AU coins regularly fetch MS money. I wouldn't think these would be eligible for the "plus" definition since the "plus" is already reflected by using a number previously reserved for MS coins.
Increasingly, the market doesn't want to be "burdened" with determining the quality of the coin -- increasingly the market expects the TPG to do it all and "price" it on the holder. I don't care for the trend, but it is what it is.