Universal Grading

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Would you find it easier to navigate through the grading maze if PCGS,NGC and CAC all agreed on the same grade for the coin ?
The price would vary for the same coin but the grade would be the same. Do you think this is possible ?

Stewart

CoinDogs

Nope grading is too subjective

Davideo

If everyone agreed on the same grade, how would the prices then vary? It only varies now due to perceived differences in the assignment of grades.

astrorat

Under the current grading system, while a nice idea, it would not work since grading is subjective. Heck, I think a huge leap would be for consistent grading within a company, but that is not possible when grading is subjective.

And as an aside, for the coins of interest to me, I really don't find it too difficult to navigate within PCGS, NGC, ANACS, with or without a sticker.

Justacommeman

<< <i>If everyone agreed on the same grade, how would the prices then vary? >>



By eye appeal as it generally does now. MJ

MidLifeCrisis

Can't happen.

fivecents

<< <i>Nope grading is too subjective >>

Nysoto

Nice concept, but it would be impossible with the current leading TPG's. The duopoly of PCGS and NCGS works because they have different market segments, and their business models work well for them. The last thing they would want would be identical grades for the same coin. Imagine that, no need for crackouts, crossovers, or resubmissions, there goes a big chunk of their revenue. They make more money by subtly changing grades over time, it keeps the recycled grading coming in. The TPG's were originally created for dealers, and they still work for the interests of their largest submitters.

guitarwes

There are grading variances within the same company. How in the world would you come to an agreement with multiple companies?

LindeDad

Isn't the price tag the true grade?

Davideo

<< <i>

<< <i>If everyone agreed on the same grade, how would the prices then vary? >>



By eye appeal as it generally does now. MJ >>



That is definitely a large driver for different coins in the same grade, but the OP said "The price would vary for the same coin".

And yes, grading is too subjective to guarantee consistency.

drei3ree

"Universal Grading" would result in a loss of revenue for the TPGs--if the concept were possible, which it is not. Grading that is subjective means big $$$ -- Imagine if you knew a coins grade would always be the same no matter the grader or company. HUGE loss of grading fees--and the game wouldn't be as fun for us either!

EDIT: That last part about "fun" was said in jest. Computer "objective" grading is possible, but not as profitable.

Davideo

<< <i>Computer "objective" grading is possible, but not as profitable. >>



Wasn't there a TPG a while back that attempted to do computer grading? Anyone know anything about that? I wonder how accurate it was...

LindeDad

<< <i>

<< <i>Computer "objective" grading is possible, but not as profitable. >>



Wasn't there a TPG a while back that attempted to do computer grading? Anyone know anything about that? I wonder how accurate it was... >>



Have to wonder if it passed the smell test first?

bestclser1

Great idea,but eye appeal is king and different to everyone.JMHO

Davideo

Apparently PCGS even experimented with computer grading.

From PCGS site:


<< <i>Myth No. 3: Certification services grade coins by computer. A few years ago, with much fanfare and hoopla, the Professional Coin Grading Service introduced The Expert, a computer which, according to claims in PCGS literature, would be able to grade coins accurately on a systematic basis. Initially, it was programmed exclusively to grade Morgan dollars. But after just a year or so of service, The Expert was "temporarily" retired, and the Irvine, California, certification service now grades coins strictly by means of human experts' eyes, not by computer. >>



Additionally, Compugrade was a short lived computer grading company.

lcoopie

any 2 people will disagree on occasion

ricko

The technology exists for computer grading, however, it is the software that remains the major hurdle. As far as 'eye appeal', yes, that is a major criteria, and one that shifts with time and individuals. What an individual finds attractive will never be part of grading, however, luster and color can be objectively assessed. Again, it is the software. Cheers, RickO

RedTiger

The PCGS computer grading project was back in 1986/87, to me that is more than a "few years." For the old timers, think about what kind of computers and phones you might have owned or used back in 1986, and it gives some perspective. Commodore 64s and Apple IIs were the most popular home computers. Big floppy disks, even tape drives were still common accessories.

In my opinion, the major hurdle is economics. If a team like IBM's WATSON Jeopardy team, plus a team of top coin experts, was put on the project they could knock it out given enough time and money. However, the business of coin grading can't justify the outlay of what might be $100 million dollars to do it right. At some point, the cost of the project gets low enough to make business sense, but not right now. So in a sense it is technology, but more so the money equation.

Computer grading would almost be necessary for the big companies to agree. It could happen, but it isn't likely to happen soon. Computer grading is going to come, but I believe it unlikely to come from the existing entrenched companies. A start up, perhaps using a student's PhD project, or a freeware hobby group's project, is more likely to bring it to the masses.

/edit to add: as far as subjective factors, such as eye appeal, the computer can learn that the same way the human graders do. By looking at thousands of coins and being told what is nice looking, and what is not. It may still make errors, but it will also have an infallible memory of every coin the computer has ever graded. Subjectivity isn't that big a hurdle, not anymore. Modern Artificial Intelligence is leaps and bounds further ahead than state of the art in 1986.

lasvegasteddy

i just don't see this happening...like same grade at any one of these outfits if coins are resubmitted

Davideo

<< <i>The PCGS computer grading project was back in 1986/87, to me that is more than a "few years." >>



Sorry, I should have pointed out the article was written in 1995. Some other things I read, show the PCGS expert was in 1990. And I do agree with your opinion that the ability to do computer grading (or least a better attempt) is there, but the economics are sketchy. It would make for an interesting grad project. And yes, AI and computer vision is vastly more advanced than over 20 years ago.

Baley

A "grade" is not exactly the same as an evaluation of condition, although physical condition of the coin is usually the majority component of the "grade".

A "grade," as used in reality (i.e. in the "coin industry") is more of an appraisal opinion of the worth of the coin, and is a starting point for "price"

Since Opinions will vary, the number assigned to the Appraisal, as well as any modifiers (CAM, RD-RB-BN, "First Strike", etc. etc.) may also vary depending on who you ask and when.

Usually, the TPG "grade", as a purportedly impartial third opinion (different and unbiassed opinion that is not the seller's or buyer's) is the beginning of the negotiation of the "Price", which is what really matters when a a transaction is contemplated or consumated.

Price guides, likewise, are a starting point, and work better for identical, fungible items like this year's mint output in PF70.

Price guides for older coins, many if not all of which are unique in appearance due to marks and toning, can by definition never be Universal (much less agreed upon by all sentient beings living on Earth)

bestclser1

<< <i>The PCGS computer grading project was back in 1986/87, to me that is more than a "few years." For the old timers, think about what kind of computers and phones you might have owned or used back in 1986, and it gives some perspective. Commodore 64s and Apple IIs were the most popular home computers. Big floppy disks, even tape drives were still common accessories.

In my opinion, the major hurdle is economics. If a team like IBM's WATSON Jeopardy team, plus a team of top coin experts, was put on the project they could knock it out given enough time and money. However, the business of coin grading can't justify the outlay of what might be $100 million dollars to do it right. At some point, the cost of the project gets low enough to make business sense, but not right now. So in a sense it is technology, but more so the money equation.

Computer grading would almost be necessary for the big companies to agree. It could happen, but it isn't likely to happen soon. Computer grading is going to come, but I believe it unlikely to come from the existing entrenched companies. A start up, perhaps using a student's PhD project, or a freeware hobby group's project, is more likely to bring it to the masses.

/edit to add: as far as subjective factors, such as eye appeal, the computer can learn that the same way the human graders do. By looking at thousands of coins and being told what is nice looking, and what is not. It may still make errors, but it will also have an infallible memory of every coin the computer has ever graded. Subjectivity isn't that big a hurdle, not anymore. Modern Artificial Intelligence is leaps and bounds further ahead than state of the art in 1986. >>

Were not alot of smartphones or Ipads and such back then.Agree wholeheartedly!