Ever Wonder Why.......

Kudbegud

....you got a 69 or 68 on a coin you felt was perfect 70 before you submitted it? Eye clean, no dings, scuffs? Why did it get a 69?

I had a thought (you could probably smell it all the way to the mainland LOL) that if PCGS would adopt a GIA like system there could be a couple benefits.

What is GIA? Gemological Institute of America. They certify and grade gems and diamonds and then provide a report. Similar to PCGS but for gems. In the report is a line drawing plotting the flaws and inclusions using different fine color pens and different patterns for each type of flaw. Here is a sample of a drawing:



My thought was to have a line drawing of the generic coin types obverse and reverse on the back of the holder showing the flaws using a similar type of colors and patterns. It wouldn't have to big. It could fit in the area used by the PCGS authentication sticker. The sticker could be changed to have the authentication hologram surround the line drawings. The sticker doesn't fill the available space right now anyway.

Some of the benefits might be:
Seeing what exactly flaws resulted in the grade you received.
A secondary means of identification because you could compare the coin to the drawing, like this gem sample:



Fewer disappointments, complaints and resubmissions = better customer satisfaction.
Better education as to grading accurately.
An added feature the other grading companies do not offer. Patent of the design/system possible?

Yes, there would be added cost and time to the grading process. But would it be prohibitive?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts if you think this would be good feature for PCGS to adopt.

magikbilly

This is sort of done in the PCGS Grading Guide First Edition, where there are drawing of all the issues with color sections showing what is primary, secondary with regard to focal areas and examples of all the types of toning etc are provided (positive, neutral, negative etc.). It is not a system that is actually used with numbers - but can you quantify an opinion based on experience regularly down to that degree?

Less submissions? I don't know. That would require people agree with most every grade assigned, no? Call the grade or numbers what you want, arrive at them as you please - people will still have a range of opinions.

Eric

PS - I have never got around to to asking a gem or diamond guy - what do you make of this article? I am sure you have seen it before.

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?

Kudbegud

I hadn't seen that article but I have seen similar ones. Thanks for the link.

True, PCGS does provide the guide you mention. But it is a general guide. These drawing I am suggesting would be specif to your exact coin, just like the gem plots are specif to an individual stone. No two coins, just like gems, are the same. Each has its specific unique flaws, or lack of flaws for a 70, that determines the grade.

I think there might be fewer resubmissions if you could see exactly why the grade was determined. As opposed to now where there is no explanation at all. You may get your coin back and say "I don't get it. What did they see that I can't? I will try again."

AMRC

While this might seem like a good idea on the surface, one of the reasons they do that with diamonds is because, due to the depth and size of the stone (as opposed to the relatively flat surfaces and size of a coin), means that many of the flaws require a great deal of expertise to detect and understand. With coins it is right out on the surface and it would seem that a good photograph would always be better and easier to do.

magikbilly

<< <i>I hadn't seen that article but I have seen similar ones. Thanks for the link.

True, PCGS does provide the guide you mention. But it is a general guide. These drawing I am suggesting would be specif to your exact coin, just like the gem plots are specif to an individual stone. No two coins, just like gems, are the same. Each has its specific unique flaws, or lack of flaws for a 70, that determines the grade.

I think there might be fewer resubmissions if you could see exactly why the grade was determined. As opposed to now where there is no explanation at all. You may get your coin back and say "I don't get it. What did they see that I can't? I will try again." >>



Hi again,

I was asking your opinion of that article

I understand that each coin would be accompanied by a drawing. I still think folks would have differences of opinion. I understand that no 2 diamonds or coins are alike. I am not qualified to say if they are comparable across the board in the way you suggest considering the variables with coins (each issue, date and MM having a different standard, which I believe is very true but not the consensus of the board in a poll I ran). I don't think so. Do folks have these discussions about the grade assigned to a gem?

Best wishes,
Eric

spy88

I understand the analogy and it's JMO but I think it's a good idea. It's the implementation
that would be the headache. Just how defined and detailed does one have to be to correctly
grade a coin? Rhetorical question here, I don't know the answer.

I like to envision a grading facility having coin charts and photos showing the conditions
required for any and all grades including specifics for year and mint. And maybe a three
person consensus before a grade is given. But again, is this practical? Another RQ. How far
would a TPG be willing or open to refining the process? Yup, another RQ.

Kudbegud

AMRC
You are right, the diamond flaws are usually deep inside and are varied in their type. ANACS used to do a photo certificate. A photo is good but would be a separate certificate. Unless your suggesting a photo rather than a line drawing. However, a photo without the colored pen drawings might not be sufficient. I know I've looked at a coin through a 10x loop before submitting it. I couldn't see anything but it came back a 69 with no explanation. The line drawing, or a photo as you suggest, with marking indication the grading points would provide all the explanation needed.

magikbilly
It was a long article so I downloaded it for later enjoyment. Thanks again. I'll give a review after I've read the whole thing.

I suggested a generic line drawing, like the gems, so one drawing would fit all of the same type, ie. one for Washington Quarters, one for Mercury Dimes etc.

There probably are disputes about the grades of a gem. Just like coins, a higher or lower grade could mean thousands of dollars.

spy88
There already is a guide, more or less, like you suggest. And a consensus before a grade is final.

I agree that additional steps and training would be needed to implement these line drawings. And it would add some time to the process. But nothing that would over tax the procedure. In fact, a drawing could speed the verification process before a final grade is assigned. What the grader sees is documented and verifiable.

crypto79

It costs big money to get a diamond graded 500 and up for a comprehensive report. Not sure the market would stomach that kind of pricing for that much detail. Stones go that deep as our eyes can't, my eyes tell me what is wrong with a coin.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Kudbegud

One of the reasons it cost so much for a gem certification is the special equipment needed and the years of training to perfect the interpretation. Its not just the plotting of the flaws but several other scientific test that can't be done without calibrated equipment with traceable certification.

The PCGS graders are already trained and experienced. I'm just suggesting they do a sketch of the problems they perceive that produce a less than 70 grade. It could even be done on a larger scale line drawing and then photo reduced to fit on the sticker. Drawing on a larger line drawing would make easier and faster to note and sketch the flaws. They could master this in no time.

This shouldn't even closely approach the $500 cost for diamond certification and grading. I can't see it adding much cost at all. I'm not talking 0.0001% NASA accurate engineering drawings. Even the diamond plots aren't absolutely accurate as to placement of the flaws. Just reasonable accuracy is all that's necessary.

Your eyes might be accurate, but you can't say you never got back a coin from grading that didn't match you guesstimate. And no explanation what so ever was offered.

crypto79

<< <i>

Your eyes might be accurate, but you can't say you never got back a coin from grading that didn't match you guesstimate. And no explanation what so ever was offered. >>



I can't remember the last time I got a graded coin back from PCGS in my area of understanding that I didn't agree with or at least see their perspective, now crossovers are a different animal.

I agree with you in concept I just think the logistic and business set up make it impossible. Also there are only so many things that can be wrong with a gem grade diamond, the depths of coin grading are much deeper.

Kudbegud

I will concede that your eye is better than 95% of the general public when it comes to determining the grade of a coin.

Impossible to implement? A temporary challenge, yes. Impossible, not if there is a will to succeed.

Diamonds and gem grading is a skill just like coin grading. There are depths we outsiders can not imagine to both. I'll bet a Gemologist would blanch at "there are only so many things that can be wrong with a gem grade diamond". Its more than just inclusions. And coins are more that just that scratch across the field. Which is deeper? I'd say equal but different.

Gem certification depends more on scientific measurement with some interpretation of inclusions documented in a drawing provided to the customer. Coin grading depends on some scientific measurement with more subjective interpretation of flaws and no documentation provided to the customer.

There hasn't been a successful computerized grading program....yet. Because it takes human subjectivity. The science could be computerized, not the grading.

BryceM

Easy enough to catalog hits, but eye appeal, surfaces, luster are more important.

crypto79

<< <i>I will concede that your eye is better than 95% of the general public when it comes to determining the grade of a coin >>



Gosh, considering less than 5% of the public collects so you are saying that I the worst grader in the hobby and even worse than some non-collectors. Ouch paper cut

Kudbegud

Your funny LOLOLOLOL

astrorat

What is the average length time a grader at GIA examines a stone? I bet it's a lot longer than the 10-20 seconds a professional coin grader takes. Throughput would plummet necessitating an increase in grading fees to recoup the loss of revenue. I don't see this as a viable, routine service for a TPG to offer from a financial viewpoint. Special service? Sure, that would be a nice option.

ricko

This will be an easy implementation when computer grading is finally implemented. Cheers, RickO

magikbilly

Det. Thorn: It's computers. Grades are determined by...computers. They're making our grades with computers. Next thing they'll be telling us we can't determine eye appeal! You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!!

Hatcher: I promise, Tiger. I promise. I'll tell the A.N.A

Det. Thorn: You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher! You've gotta tell them! Coin grading is done with computers! We've gotta stop them somehow!


This was on the other night - shocking to realize is 42 years old now! 2022 is only 7 years away!
Eric :

Kudbegud

<< <i>This will be an easy implementation when computer grading is finally implemented. Cheers, RickO >>


We wouldn't have to wait for full computer grading. Right now they all have a monitor right in front of them with the input form showing. How difficult to include a line drawing, clickable to full screen, that could be sketched on using a stylus and touch pad. I'm not talking minutes to do the drawing but less than a minute...30 seconds? 45? They would get faster as they perfected the process.