A suggestion to PCGS on Plus Grades (and potentially Star Grades)

WingedLiberty1957

Does PCGS ever take suggestions for improvements from customers?

This is just a suggestion for a potential improvement/enhancement to PCGS grades.


I finally stumbled on this PCGS Grading Table (see image below) on the PCGS website. It was REALLY eye opening!


First off, take note that the ONLY grades that mention “Eye Appeal” have “+” notations -- starting at 45+ and going through 68+.
So it appears a coin HAS TO HAVE EYE APPEAL to get a + grade!!!! Who knew!

No standard/whole (non plus) grade EVER MENTIONS EYE APPEAL.

It appears PCGS also adds the word “VERY” to some of the marks and strike adjectives going to the plus grades. For example, in going from 66 to 66+, PCGS goes from “Few Marks” to “Very Few Marks” ... from Good Strike to Very Good Strike .... AND they add “Eye Appeal” as a requirement for the plus grade!

So in going to a PLUS grade ... there is a slight improvement in the condition of the coin (independent of the eye appeal); but the coin MUST HAVE EYE APPEAL ALSO to get the + grade.

Honestly, I think this current PLUS system is a bit messy, it's confusing and difficult to apply.

I just wanted to put forth a suggestion that PCGS consider adopting a separate symbol for eye appeal independent of strike and marks.

That way they could leave the + grades for coins that are truly half way to the next grade based on strike and marks only

So you could (potentially) have a PCGS MS66 ... or MS66 STAR … or MS66+ ... or MS66+ STAR

That’s a cleaner grading system …

Why have a system where you don’t reward coins for eye appeal just because they fall on a whole grade?

And why have a system where if a coin is half way to the next grade, you can’t PLUS (+) the coin because it does not have eye appeal?

That makes no sense.

michiganboy

Yeah and while where at it, lets get a different genuine code for excessive toning that classifies differently from environmental damage. Even if toning is corrosion I feel that if no pitting or otherwise damaged can be seen under good magnification then dark toning alone should put in label as that. Reason being is when I look at a coin online or sell and it says environmental damage, when the question comes up where is the environmental damage. Explaining that the toning is why they feel is was put in a genuine holder leaves a lot to be examined and well the internet does not really allow for that.

lkeigwin

<< <i>Yeah and while where at it, lets get a different genuine code for excessive toning that classifies differently from environmental damage. Even if toning is corrosion I feel that if no pitting or otherwise damaged can be seen under good magnification then dark toning alone should put in label as that. Reason being is when I look at a coin online or sell and it says environmental damage, when the question comes up where is the environmental damage. Explaining that the toning is why they feel is was put in a genuine holder leaves a lot to be examined and well the internet does not really allow for that. >>


I don't see PCGS implementing a star for eye appeal. They like to lead, not follow.

michiganboy, toning is not corrosion and coins are not BB'd for it, even if it is very dark. Toning is tarnish that sits on top of the coin. Corrosion has eaten into the coin.
Lance.

golfer72

Let me say this. PCGS does not follow its own guidelines. Above ave strike for MS-65? I have seen oodles of coins with below ave strikes in 65 slabs.

golfer72

Hey Winged Liberty. How about deciding for yourself which coins have eye appeal? Guess what. EYE APPEAL IS SUBJECTIVE! I cant believe all you koolaid drinkers need a company to put a plus or a star on a slab to tell you it has eye appeal. Open your eyes.

michiganboy

<< <i>

<< <i>Yeah and while where at it, lets get a different genuine code for excessive toning that classifies differently from environmental damage. Even if toning is corrosion I feel that if no pitting or otherwise damaged can be seen under good magnification then dark toning alone should put in label as that. Reason being is when I look at a coin online or sell and it says environmental damage, when the question comes up where is the environmental damage. Explaining that the toning is why they feel is was put in a genuine holder leaves a lot to be examined and well the internet does not really allow for that. >>


I don't see PCGS implementing a star for eye appeal. They like to lead, not follow.

michiganboy, toning is not corrosion and coins are not BB'd for it, even if it is very dark. Toning is tarnish that sits on top of the coin. Corrosion has eaten into the coin.
Lance. >>



Actually if you do a little research the toning process is considered a form of corrosion, on silver though yes it usually sits on top and does no damage. As far a BB for toning I think you better call PCGS and get your facts straight because they sure do I just a had conversation about this very subject with PCGS as well a two dealers who have gotten the same code 97 BB for excessive toning.

michiganboy

Toning is just the numismatic way of saying tarnish. Ironically, like rust on iron, toning on silver and bronze is a form of corrosion. What happens with silver and bronze is similar to what happens with iron, only it's a slower process with bronze and an even slower process with silver. Like rust, the toning on coins gets thicker over time.

This is taken from herecoin toning article

edited to add link

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>Hey Winged Liberty. How about deciding for yourself which coins have eye appeal? Guess what. EYE APPEAL IS SUBJECTIVE! I cant believe all you koolaid drinkers need a company to put a plus or a star on a slab to tell you it has eye appeal. Open your eyes. >>



golfer72, you obviously did not read my post and are completely missing my point (not too surprising based on your attitude). My point was NOT that I need PCGS to put a plus or star on a slab to tell me something. It was that PCGS's plus system mixes grade and eye appeal in a very messy, confusing, and obtuse way. And I was simply making a suggestion that would clean up this system so it's more intuitive.

Like it or not PCGS is ALREADY using eye appeal as a grading criteria (pls. take the time to ACTUALLY LOOK AT and COMPREHEND the PCGS grading table I posted in the OP!) -- they are simply mixing it in with the plus grades that technically lie in between the major grade levels.


By the way, I do find it odd (and confusing) to note all the adjectives PCGS uses for eye appeal as you move to higher and higher plus grades noted in the table in the OP:

It starts out at EF45+ with SUPERIOR eye appeal,
at AU50+ it goes to GOOD eye appeal,
at AU53+ it goes to POSITIVE eye appeal.

Continuing up the grading scale the eye appeal adjectives go from:
GOOD (at AU55+) to SUPERIOR (at AU58+) to ATTRACTIVE (at MS/PR62+) ...
then back to GOOD (at MS/PR63+), then back to SUPERIOR (at MS/PR64+), then ABOVE AVERAGE (at MS/PR65+) ...
then back to SUPERIOR (at MS/PR66+), then back to ATTRACTIVE (at MS/PR67+), and finally ending at VERY GOOD (at MS/PR68+).

Certainly it's not the most clear and concise documentation I've ever seen.
I would love to see this cleaned up at some point, as I cannot think of any reason to use all these different adjectives describing eye appeal that appear to change (and loosely repeat) in a seemingly random fashion.

lkeigwin

<< <i>Toning is just the numismatic way of saying tarnish. Ironically, like rust on iron, toning on silver and bronze is a form of corrosion. What happens with silver and bronze is similar to what happens with iron, only it's a slower process with bronze and an even slower process with silver. Like rust, the toning on coins gets thicker over time.

This is taken from herecoin toning article

edited to add link >>

Hi, michiganboy. Don't believe everything you read in a blog. Anyone can make one.

Corrosion is damage. Toning is not. Maybe that's the best way to distinguish them.
Lance.

michiganboy

<< <i>

<< <i>Toning is just the numismatic way of saying tarnish. Ironically, like rust on iron, toning on silver and bronze is a form of corrosion. What happens with silver and bronze is similar to what happens with iron, only it's a slower process with bronze and an even slower process with silver. Like rust, the toning on coins gets thicker over time.

This is taken from herecoin toning article

edited to add link >>

Hi, michiganboy. Don't believe everything you read in a blog. Anyone can make one.

Corrosion is damage. Toning is not. Maybe that's the best way to distinguish them.
Lance. >>



That was just the first one I picked of the internet buddy, theres a whole lot more of them out there saying the same thing. You look up any scientific info on the process of toning and it also talks about it being a form of corrosion and thats coming from a non numismatic point of view. What you fail to realize
is not all forms of corrosion have to be damaging.

michiganboy

For Lance

Environmental Damage: Corrosion, excessive toning, verdigris

Coins that are damaged because of improper storage may be rejected. Corrosion is caused by storage in areas of high humidity, sea salvage coins, and coins found in the ground. Toning that is excessively dark or heavy, or which burns into the surface of the coin, may be rejected., or which burns into the surface of the coin, may be rejected.

Taken directly from PCGS grading standards

lkeigwin

Corrosion is not damage? That's a new one to me. By definition, corrosion is the gradual destruction of a material.

Toning that burns into the surface of a coin is damage. Pretty simple, really.
Lance.

coinman23885

<< <i>Does PCGS ever take suggestions for improvements from customers?
>>



No. I have tried several times with a couple of suggestions. One of my suggestions included a star designation or PCGS analog. I started my own thread (and I believe that there were others who agreed with some of my suggestions) and I even sent a PM to Don Willis outlining that there would be a demand for such a service (and it would likely generate revenue). I never received a response to my PM and PCGS administration ignored the thread completely. They could care less about your proposed suggestions (no offense meant to you).

WingedLiberty1957

Thanks for posting that coinman. That's interesting.

I will note that (not to make suggestions to PCGS in the future).
If they fall on deaf ears, what's the point. Right?

coinman23885

<< <i>Let me say this. PCGS does not follow its own guidelines. Above ave strike for MS-65? I have seen oodles of coins with below ave strikes in 65 slabs. >>



I agree. I have seen Morgan Dollars with clean cheeks and weak strikes in MS64 holders, but I have also seen a fair number of MS65 coins with less clean cheeks and surfaces and that have much weaker strike, especially around Miss Liberty's ear.

golfer72

<< <i>

<< <i>Hey Winged Liberty. How about deciding for yourself which coins have eye appeal? Guess what. EYE APPEAL IS SUBJECTIVE! I cant believe all you koolaid drinkers need a company to put a plus or a star on a slab to tell you it has eye appeal. Open your eyes. >>



golfer72, you obviously did not read my post and are completely missing my point (not too surprising based on your attitude). My point was NOT that I need PCGS to put a plus or star on a slab to tell me something. It was that PCGS's plus system mixes grade and eye appeal in a very messy, confusing, and obtuse way. And I was simply making a suggestion that would clean up this system so it's more intuitive.

Like it or not PCGS is ALREADY using eye appeal as a grading criteria (pls. take the time to ACTUALLY LOOK AT and COMPREHEND the PCGS grading table I posted in the OP!) -- they are simply mixing it in with the plus grades that technically lie in between the major grade levels.


By the way, I do find it odd (and confusing) to note all the adjectives PCGS uses for eye appeal as you move to higher and higher plus grades noted in the table in the OP:

It starts out at EF45+ with SUPERIOR eye appeal,
at AU50+ it goes to GOOD eye appeal,
at AU53+ it goes to POSITIVE eye appeal.

Continuing up the grading scale the eye appeal adjectives go from:
GOOD to SUPERIOR to ATTRACTIVE (at MS/PR62+) ...
then back to GOOD, then back to SUPERIOR, then ABOVE AVERAGE (at MS/PR65+) ...
then back to SUPERIOR, then back to ATTRACTIVE, and finally ending at VERY GOOD (at MS/PR68+).

Certainly it's not the most clear and concise documentation I've ever seen.
I would love to see this cleaned up at some point, as I cannot think of any reason to use all these different adjectives that appear to change (and loosely repeat) in a seemingly random fashion. >>

I hear you Winged Liberty! I just get annoyed with all this plus and star nonsense. I think the whole concept is absurd. I guess if you are suggesting a way to make it better that is a good thing.

coinman23885

<< <i>Hey Winged Liberty. How about deciding for yourself which coins have eye appeal? Guess what. EYE APPEAL IS SUBJECTIVE! I cant believe all you koolaid drinkers need a company to put a plus or a star on a slab to tell you it has eye appeal. Open your eyes. >>



I would not call proponents of plus and star grading "koolaid drinkers" at all. There are many people that are unable to make it to every large show, and they are forced to buy coins online. A star or plus designation can confirm a buyer's observation that a particular online image is accurate and that the coin is truly superb (and is not the result of image manipulation - or at least the coin is still nice despite any manipulation of the image).

I like both concepts and wish that PCGS would implement a star designation. I also wish they would implement the PL and DMPL designation for all regular circulating series, but this will never happen either. In short, PCGS is loosing a lot of revenue to NGC for this. I have several coins that I won't cross precisely because of this.

WingedLiberty1957

By the way, if the PCGS graders are using this table to assign grades, I can see why grades would fluctuate so much if you sent the same coin in 10 times.

Can anyone actually quantify how to tell the difference between a "few minor flaws" from a "very few minor flaws".

Is a "few" 10 or 8 or 5 ??? Is a "very few" 8 or 6 or 4 ? Who knows? The numerical value of Few and very few could easily change from person to person.

Or "Very well struck" (MS67) from "Slight weakness of strike allowed" (MS68) ... How does one differentiate very well struck from a slight weakness ?

If I was grading a coin, those determinations might change depending on what I had for lunch that day!

michiganboy

<< <i>Corrosion is not damage? That's a new one to me. By definition, corrosion is the gradual destruction of a material.

Toning that burns into the surface of a coin is damage. Pretty simple, really.
Lance. >>



Not all toning burns into surfaces especially on silver, but the excessive patina is not always eye appealing. I did not say corrosion was not damaging, in the form of rust it will eat the metal away. In the case of silver it will form on top of the metal and protect it, all metals reaction are not the same. The only thing to take into account though is the scientific world considers toning a form of corrosion but it has different results on different metals. I have done lots of research on this and think you should to, so you understand the science.

golfer72

<< <i>

<< <i>Hey Winged Liberty. How about deciding for yourself which coins have eye appeal? Guess what. EYE APPEAL IS SUBJECTIVE! I cant believe all you koolaid drinkers need a company to put a plus or a star on a slab to tell you it has eye appeal. Open your eyes. >>



I would not call proponents of plus and star grading "koolaid drinkers" at all. There are many people that are unable to make it to every large show, and they are forced to buy coins online. A star or plus designation can confirm a buyer's observation that a particular online image is accurate and that the coin is truly superb (and is not the result of image manipulation - or at least the coin is still nice despite any manipulation of the image).

I like both concepts and wish that PCGS would implement a star designation. I also wish they would implement the PL and DMPL designation for all regular circulating series, but this will never happen either. In short, PCGS is loosing a lot of revenue to NGC for this. I have several coins that I won't cross precisely because of this. >>

The problem is plus grades dont confirm anything. there is too much inconsistency in grading to refine it to less than one point increments.

golfer72

<< <i>By the way, if the PCGS graders are using this table to assign grades, I can see why grades would fluctuate so much if you sent the same coin in 10 times.

Can anyone actually quantify how to tell the difference between a "few minor flaws" from a "very few minor flaws".

Or "Very well struck" from "Slight weakness of strike allowed"

If I was grading a coin, those determinations might change depending on what I had for lunch that day! >>

georgiacop50

<< <i>Is a "few" 10 or 8 or 5 ??? Is a "very few" 8 or 6 or 4 ? Who knows? The numerical value of Few and very few could easily change from person to person. >>



I can dig it Wingedliberty57!

Some of us like "Standard Operating Procedures", manuals, recipies, and such where every thing is spelled out in measureable, clear cut, defined terms.

We make good Laboratory Technicians, Short-order cooks, and DOT Engineers, but generally shy away from things like Artist, Chef or Interior design, where "thinking out of the box" is an asset.

But grading is subjective and does not lend itself to such etched in stone parameters.

Broadstruck

<< <i>I don't see PCGS implementing a star for eye appeal. They like to lead, not follow. >>



True then how about a Dollar Sign as MS66+$ on a slab = Serious Moon Money!

crazyhounddog

<< <i>

<< <i>I don't see PCGS implementing a star for eye appeal. They like to lead, not follow. >>



True then how about a Dollar Sign as MS66+$ on a slab = Serious Moon Money! >>




I like that idea!!!

PCGSCustomerService

<< <i>Thanks for posting that coinman. That's interesting.

I will note that (not to make suggestions to PCGS in the future).
If they fall on deaf ears, what's the point. Right? >>




PCGS recieves hundreds of suggestions on a regular basis and even though they are not all responded too and or likely to be put into play, they are ALL read and greatly appreciated. Please don't let one banned forum member with an attitude problem deter you from making suggestions with positive intent. PCGS learns a lot from the users on these forums and everyones comments are very much appreciated.

renomedphys

<< <i>Please don't let one banned forum member with an attitude problem deter you from making suggestions with positive intent. PCGS learns a lot from the users on these forums and everyones comments are very much appreciated. >>



Wait wait! Who got banned?

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>PCGS receives hundreds of suggestions on a regular basis and even though they are not all responded too and or likely to be put into play, they are ALL read and greatly appreciated. Please don't let one banned forum member with an attitude problem deter you from making suggestions with positive intent. PCGS learns a lot from the users on these forums and everyone's comments are very much appreciated. >>



Hey PCGS Customer Service,

Thanks for posting that comment. That is really great to hear. Most of what I know about PCGS is from what people post on these boards, and it makes sense that some people might have a skewed or biased view of things depending on a random and singular experience they might have had.

I am certainly glad that you guys might consider this suggestion -- and I do realize that making any changes to your grading system is complicated and there are a lot of factors (and moving pieces) to consider.

In any case, I think that what I suggested makes a lot of intuitive sense and would be a marked improvement.

As a selling point to the powers that be at PCGS on this suggestion ... you could also note to the brass that if PCGS did implement some sort of STAR (eye appeal) system (independent of the PLUS system, which clearly (intuitively) should be reserved for coins that fall in-between whole grades based on marks and strike) -- they could generate a lot of new revenue as collectors with eye appealing coins might resubmit attempting to get the new designation to potentially increase value of said coin in the open marketplace.

I realize this last statement will probably get me FLAMED in this thread for being a "kookaid drinker" or some other derogatory name that some people like to throw out at people that appreciate what PCGS is trying to do. And I am sure I will get somebody posing a question to me of "Why do I need PCGS to tell me that a coin is eye appealing?" The answer is, I don't. However it would be nice to know what the grader at PCGS thought of a coins eye appeal - after all we pay for their professional opinion. And I would like to add that sometimes when we (as collectors) buy coins online we rely on a sellers photo that could be juiced -- so a PCGS star would be a nice confirmation of a coins "in-hand appeal" when buying a coin online or sight unseen.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

DonWillis

As PCGS Customer Service said, we always welcome suggestions and ideas. We listen and sometimes it makes sense and is doable. Many times it is not.

We also do try to have a comprehensive website which anticipates most questions and explains as much as we can. There are over 90,000 pages on our site. Make sure you try the Search feature before giving up. I use it all the time.

I personally have answered the Plus questions, in print, many times.

Last thing - like the Stones said "You can't always get what you want"..... we try our best but we all have to make choices. Taking shots at PCGS on our boards is not a smart choice.

LindeDad

<< <i>

<< <i>Please don't let one banned forum member with an attitude problem deter you from making suggestions with positive intent. PCGS learns a lot from the users on these forums and everyones comments are very much appreciated. >>



Wait wait! Who got banned? >>



Probably Golfers snide remarks got to be enough.

joeykoins

Oh,Oh!

renomedphys

<< <i>Probably Golfers snide remarks got to be enough.
>>



Confirmed: Login (as Golfer72) Denied!

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>As PCGS Customer Service said, we always welcome suggestions and ideas. We listen and sometimes it makes sense and is doable. Many times it is not.

We also do try to have a comprehensive website which anticipates most questions and explains as much as we can. There are over 90,000 pages on our site. Make sure you try the Search feature before giving up. I use it all the time.

I personally have answered the Plus questions, in print, many times.

Last thing - like the Stones said "You can't always get what you want"..... we try our best but we all have to make choices. Taking shots at PCGS on our boards is not a smart choice. >>



Hello Don,

Yes, I hear about "not always getting what you want"!!
I totally agree.

Still it's nice that you are at least open to hearing feedback and suggestions from your customer base.
I really appreciate that aspect of your business.

Have a nice day,