Options
What exactly is NET GRADING? Why is it used?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm going to try to let my coin club members know what it is all about. They are old guys and gals not on the Internet forums. I know ANACS did net grading for awhile. I know Large cent collectors do it. I wonder if the two major TPGS use it? Will as many of you as possible explain what it is and how it works. Examples are welcome. Thanks!
0
Comments
To me, I think it's an attempt to place the coin in the "Sheldon Scale" based on value of the coin, instead of based purely on the actual physical grade.
For instance, a cleaned coin with AU details in every other way might be called "AU details, Net XF-40". I'm not all that familiar with ANACS today....but that's how they used to grade "problem coins".
As for other services, I don't think PCGS officially uses net grading for problem coins. They will call it, "AU details, Cleaned". You are then left to your own devices to determine if it's worth XF, VF, or AG money. (Not that anyone really used the ANACS net grade as anything more than another opinion, anyway).
However, many (including me) will tell you that PCGS and NGC may "quietly net" some coins that don't raise to the level of "problem coins", but do have an issues that makes straight grading problematic. For instance, an AU-50 coin in every other respect, but with a rim ding, might get called XF-40. No mention of the issue is done....But the imperfections beyond "normal wear" just get mixed into the final grade.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it....
I have no idea but in my simple mind I think it would be the mean grade considering the obverse and reverse with some consideration being given to the age/scarcity/rarity of the piece. JMO
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
I have a common-date Walker in an MS62 holder. I figured it for an easy MS65, but indeed, if you look carefully, there is a bit of rub. It's not much, but technically the coin in an AU58. The graders probably figured its actual value at closer to an MS62 coin...... so that's the holder they put it in.
It's a straight technical grade with points subtracted for any problems such as hairlines or excessively dark toning or heavy bag marks. I've seen double eagles for example that were uncirculated as far as having no wear but were graded as AU58 due to heavy bag marks. On the other hand coins with beautiful toning can have points added to their technical grade.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
It is an attempt to establish a grade that reflects the market value of a piece.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
For the purest it's just a way to camouflage trash.
As a hypothetical example- If a Morgan dollar has a MS65 technical grade, but has been lightly cleaned but not harsh enough for details grade- how many points would typically be deducted for the net grade if there are no other distracting blemishes on coin.
I found this online.
It's used for a slight problem coin that belongs to somebody important so it needs to be whitewashed somehow, someway for the consumption of the hoi polloi.
Hypothetical example: a fisherman gets a bad hole in his fishing net. So he wants to sell it. He emphasizes that fishing nets consist of a series of holes and that this net actually now has ONE LESS hole in it than it did before. That is "net" grading.
To me, "grade" and "value" are completely different, and no coin should be graded differently based on any assumption of value.
Net grading is an attempt to place a level of preservation on a piece that has some sort of a problem that prevents it from getting a clean, straight grade. The practice is used for two purposes, to estimate a market value and, in the case of early copper collectors, to rank the best coins for a condition census.
Generally run of the mill problems (e.g. light cleaning, minor rim nicks, light hairlines, minor scratches, light to moderate spotting) lower the grade by one level. For example an AU is net graded to EF, or an EF is lowered to VF. More severe problems will lower the grade by more than that. For example a hole in 1792 half disme with Choice EF sharpness might lower it to the value of a VG, and yes, such a coin does exist.
To me the Sheldon grading numbers go out the window for almost all net grading situations. For example if a coin has EF-40 sharpness and is net graded to VF, the value would normally be for a VF-20. How can you call a problem EF a choice VF? To me the two don’t go together.
The one exception of where the Sheldon grading numbers might matter is net grading for condition census purposes. For example if you are trying to rank two corroded large cents with the same sharpness grade, the slightly less corroded one might get a boost so that the ranking for the two coins can be made.
I do not agree with pushing up the net grade because of attractive toning. Perhaps we should develop some sort of scale for toning that is added to the base the grade. I know that might open a can of worms, but increasing a Mint State grade because a piece with marks is beautifully toned is just wrong and misleading. If the toning is uniquely beautiful, that that is a subject decision that should not add points to the base grade.
Grading standards should also not be lowered because of rarity. A rare or key date should not be graded more loosely because it is rare. It should be graded just like its common date counterpart. One pays high prices for rarity; one should not have to pay again with lose grading because of rarity.
Generally I disagree with the certification company practice of net grading slabs. A no problem VF graded coin is worth more to me than an EF with a problem that gets called a plain old VF. Such coins are not of equal value in my opinion.
It's a judgement call based on an open-minded assessment of aesthetic quality of a somehow impaired coin.
For example, this one seems to have been net graded, not sure why: https://i.imgur.com/JwCAKR4.jpg https://i.imgur.com/gopTY15.jpg
This Bust 50c looked fully AU to me: https://i.imgur.com/Zrg3b.jpg Fields seemed cleaned to me but could have been acceptable impairment.
And then you get relatively minor issues with and otherwise nice coin: https://i.imgur.com/W4P3e8N.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jbwx1TT.jpg What are they worth? Objectively damaged or cleaned coins are knocked way down; but many "would" have been highly desirable if not for the problem.
@messydesk said: "It is an attempt to establish a grade that reflects the market value of a piece."
This is a little confusing. I think your post is the definition of "COMMERCIAL" grading: "It is an attempt to establish a grade that reflects the market value of a piece." I am looking for a difference - if there is one. I've been told/read that "Commercial" or "Market" grading done by the TPGS is an attempt to put a value on the coin they grade. Can you add something or is net grading actually the same as commercial grading. See why I'm posting my question? I don't wish to look silly to the club.
@Jimnight said: "As a hypothetical example- If a Morgan dollar has a MS65 technical grade, but has been lightly cleaned but not harsh enough for details grade- how many points would typically be deducted for the net grade if there are no other distracting blemishes on coin."
Actually, I learned all about "technical" grading from the person who devised that system in 1973 at ANACS in Washington. There is no such thing as a cleaned coin technically graded MS-65! Nevertheless, I think you are saying that the coin looks like an MS-65 but it is cleaned. Therefore it is not worth MS-65 money. That's why the coin is assigned a lower MS grade? Now I'm confused again. Sorry!
What is the difference between an Uncirculated coin given a lower MS grade due to cleaning and one that is graded Uncirculated "details" Cleaned? I
@BillDugan1959 said: "It's used for a slight problem coin that belongs to somebody important so it needs to be whitewashed somehow, someway for the consumption of the hoi polloi."
I like your "net" example but wish you had used a coin. Otherwise, what you have claimed is that the major TPGS's grade coins differently depending on who sends it in.
@RogerB said: "To me, "grade" and "value" are completely different, and no coin should be graded differently based on any assumption of value.
You old dinosaur, that's exactly why true technical was used at ANACS for internal documentation of the coins. As long as the coin remained in the same condition of preservation it's technical grade would NEVER change. The value of the coin, its rarity, its owner, etc. had no effect on its condition of preservation! Grade the coin based on the condition it was when it left the coin press: 1884-O Gem Unc, Flat Strike and let the market determine what it is worth. Unfortunately, that was too easy.
Can a coin be net graded higher than its actual condition?
No
i always thought it meant, for example, if that the obv is a 65 and the rev is a 63, the coin would be net graded the lower number or 63.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
Now, I'm really confused! I want to know if a coin can be net graded higher than its actual condition?
@BillJones said: "No."
@BryceM has a coin that is technically an AU58 graded MS-62. He thinks that the graders probably figured its actual value at closer to an MS62 coin...... so that's the holder they put it in.
Should I tell the club that "net" grading can go both ways?
@lusterlover said: "i always thought it meant, for example, if that the obv is a 65 and the rev is a 63, the coin would be net graded the lower number or 63."
I think that is just normal grading as the reverse is not the important side but it can hurt the overall grade.
The marketplace will add a point or two for very attractive toning. I disagree with this practice but it's the reality of the marketplace.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Yes, you are correct about that. That is a case of market grading as opposed to technical grading.
I am not totally against the market grading concept if the coin has great eye appeal. Over the years I’ve come to believe that a little rub is a less sin than hacked up, bagged up surfaces. This especially applies to the grading of low end Mint State double eagles. Some of the so-called MS-61 pieces are ugly as marsh mud.
I agree that it's the definition of commercial grading, but since that's how net grading is typically used, either when citing problems by saying something like "AU cleaned, net XF," or silently adjusting for them by assigning a grade of VF to an XF with a minor quibble somewhere, we mostly have a distinction without a difference.
A big problem with arriving at net grades, whether it is for valuation purposes or trying to rank, for example, a lightly corroded piece against a lightly hairlined piece, is the dimensionality of the "problem" space is pretty big. Being cleaned, corroded, bent, scratched, hairlined, holed, tooled, and artificially colored are each dimensions in the assessment of a coin's problems. This 8-dimensional parameter set must somehow be translated into a single number for arriving at a net grade. A non-problem circulated coin, on the other hand, has only one parameter -- wear, which maps directly to the one-dimensional grade. The easiest way to crunch these 8 dimensions into one is through the value penalty the marketplace assigns to them.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Simply put, a net graded coin is a coin which has a problem not deemed severe enough by a TPG to be bodybagged, so its technical grade is reduced to reflect this problem. This makes the coin "market acceptable" to many in the hobby.
It could be funky color on a Bust Dollar, hairlines on a proof coin, unattractive color on an uncirculated Liberty Nickel, etc.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Well sometimes a coin frightens the graders so badly they place nets over their heads for protection
When a grader go's fishing and wishes he had a net....
Hoard the keys.
Well, if we are defining grading by what the grader has on their head.....I personally do "Bi-focal Grading". It's not as good as regular grading, but it's the best you're going to get out of me.
Thanks everyone and PLEASE KEEP POSTING your opinions. There is a lot here for me to absorb and I have several questions.
It appears that most are confused about technical grading. That is not done anymore so I'll assume everyone is writing that while the condition of a coin is "technically"...
I'm still trying to find the difference between commercial grading (value) and net grading (value) so it appears they are both the same and a coin can be upgraded or downgraded using both net grading or commercial grading. I may need to beg out of the talk if I cannot make more sense out of this.
Are their any EAC members here. AFAIK copper can only be "net" graded down and that is also to put a value on the coin. One other thing I'll need to know:
If a person is not an experienced, professional coin dealer, how do they put a value on a coin or decide how much to lower a coin's grade (net grading)?
AKA:
market grading
BHNC #203
@Treashunt said: "AKA: market grading."
So, net grading is Market grading. That means the TPGS's net grade every coin they see? I cannot believe that is true. Color me stupid but I thought net grading was an entirely different operation. Can there be two types of net grading? While each puts a value on a coin, one "net" grade can go up or down. The other (used for copper) can only go down?
I kind of agree that ALL grading is net grading, really.
If we assume every coin was the "best it was ever going to be" at the moment it was struck, everything that happens to it after that is deducted from that original "max grade". (Or in the case of color/toning, added).
Bag marks: Knock it down a grade or two....
Dipped: Knock it down some more for impaired luster...
Spent a week in someone pocket: Now it's an AU....
Someone drilled a hole in it?: Now it's an AU, holed, net VF.
The issue becomes, (as you mention a few posts back), "What are the rules? How much does each new impairment affect the grade?"
For coins that are "non-problem", (as defined by the current market), the Sheldon Scale, which evolved further over time, and was taught to us by the ANA grading guide, and modified by the TPG's, does a pretty good job of defining the basic parameters. Two people might disagree, but few would call a VF coin an AU, or vice versa.
True problem coins, on the other hand, really don't have a defined scale. Is harsh cleaning better or worse than a hole? Is a hole better or worse than corrosion? I don't know.....
In the end, everyone makes their own choices. Given a tray full of AU-53 coins, some will appeal to you, some will make you gag. And it's almost guaranteed that the same ones won't do the same thing for me....
So, maybe the key is to view "Net Grading" as part of grading in general, and not as a separate topic at all?
IMO this is one of, maybe the most, informative threads that I can remember. Much better than that "1964 special strike penny" nonsense. EGADS! I was beginning to lose all hope. Thanks, insider2.
No, I have an MS65 coin that was net graded down to a 62 for a bit of rub so minute that it did not knock the coin out of the realm of MS grades. (Tongue-in-cheek)
Yes, probably the term “net grading” in its purest form is probably along the lines of EAC grading. The example I gave is probably more correctly termed market grading.
I got a laugh out of those of you who referenced grading standards. Truly, such a thing does not exist.
@Hydrant said: "IMO this is one of, maybe the most, informative threads that I can remember. Much better than that "1964 special strike penny" nonsense. EGADS! I was beginning to lose all hope."
If you get the "right" instructors, this stuff goes on in class, at meals, and after hours under the stars at the ANA Summer Seminar. I've been a few times. Highly recommended.
At least I can say this about net grading. It beats the devil out of the old days when a really rare and genuine coin did not exist so far as the leading third party graders were concerned. Back in the body bag days, you could have had a problem 1808 Quarter Eagle that could not be graded despite the fact that it was worth a 5 figure amount.
@BillJones said: "At least I can say this about net grading. It beats the devil out of the old days when a really rare and genuine coin did not exist so far as the leading third party graders were concerned. Back in the body bag days, you could have had a problem 1808 Quarter Eagle that could not be graded despite the fact that it was worth a 5 figure amount."
Thanks Bill but you've confused me even more with your post.
AFAIK, in the "old days" (body bags), coins were returned ungraded. That is neither "net grading" nor "detail grading." Thus, I don't understand your post.
Today, the TPGS "detail" grade coins. As I understand, this means the TPGS assigns the actual wear grade (NOT A NET GRADE) and then identifies the problem. I certainly don't know as much about the workings of the TPGS as you must as I rarely send coins for grading; however, please comment on this: A detail grade is the same grade the coin should receive if it had no problem.
Are coin's with problems that are "detailed" by the services also knocked down (net) a grade too.
If you are a member of the EAC, do you know if the copper collectors do this?
Here might be an example of net up-grading. When I first posted this, many here thought it was 63 material(a bit harsh perhaps), generous at 64. I think the clean fields and good eye appeal gave it the push to a 65 grade.
Collector, occasional seller
Insider, there are most certainly technical grading standards. Unfortunately, they are now often used as a starting point, rather than a foundation.
If you want to know the value of a coin, look at the most recent auction sales data available for a particular coin in a particular grade, and you can figure it out. Re thinly graded material, it's worth what a particular individual is willing to pay for it on a given day.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I’ll clarify.
In the old days you got your coin back in a flip (a.k.a. “body bag”) with a slip that was the size of a slab insert that said why the coin had been rejected. You might have used that to prove that the coin was genuine, but I have almost never seen that done. Hence the grading service, in essence, made your $10,000+ coin seem like it didn’t exist so far as they were concerned. In other words, you got nothing for your money from a body bag.
Now you get a details slab grade that confirms that the coin is genuine. That can be something of value. When you see a 1796 Quarter in a "details" holder, you know that the grading service says that it is genuine and not made in China.
Yes, they do it all the time, and they have to do it because only a small number of early copper coins avoid net grading. You should join EAC and get a copy of the annual auction sale catalog. Virtually nothing gets a totally straight grade.
@Elcontador said: "Insider, there are most certainly technical grading standards. Unfortunately, they are now often used as a starting point, rather than a foundation."
Perhaps you can tell me and others on this thread exactly where you found the "Technical" grading system standards.
This is what I can say for sure. "TRUE" technical grading died out at the first TPGS (INSAB) around 1987 or 88. The grading practiced at the second TPGS - ANACS was NOT TECHNICAL GRADING as they didn't have a clue! Although they claimed to use technical grading they invented their own system. Note that True technical grading is an archival system. What happened at ANACS when all their MS-65's became MS-63's to get in line with the "commercial grading" (VALUE BASED) going on in the coin market proves they got it wrong.
Our host came along because INSAB and ANACS were not market based. INS eventually went out of business and ANACS became second rate. A place they will always hold.
@Elcontador wrote: "If you want to know the value of a coin, look at the most recent auction sales data available for a particular coin in a particular grade, and you can figure it out. Re thinly graded material, it's worth what a particular individual is willing to pay for it on a given day."
Thanks for the advice but I don't think it is that easy. if I understand you, I have a coin that I think grades MS-65. I look up the value of a 65 and that tells me that my coin is graded correctly? Or, do I look up the price of a MS-65 coin and then decide if my coin is worth that much? I have heard how hard it is to grade from photos too; however I do use the PCGS grading images.
AFAIK, it takes lots of time and study to pick up a coin and put a value on it. How much do I net grade it. How much do I add for color? If grading were easy, we would not need TPGS or it they were still around we could all be professional graders and make some big $$$,$$$!
THANKS BILL, you have a lot of patience.
@BillJones said: That copper collectors net grade. "...Yes, they do it all the time, and they have to do it because only a small number of early copper coins avoid net grading. You should join EAC and get a copy of the annual auction sale catalog. Virtually nothing gets a totally straight grade. "
Actually, I became a member of EAC decades ago. I only lasted one year as their publication was way too advanced for me and of very limited use to a "generalist" collector.
Perhaps if I were a numismatic genius...
I still need to study this thread but what may have been said is very confusing:
So far, net grading is the same as market grading except it is not used for detail graded coins. Net grading puts a value on a coin just as market grading does. If most large cents are net graded, how do I know when a "straight graded" TPGS slab containing a non-copper coin is net graded? I guess it would help to be an ex-coin dealer so I could tell by the actual worth of the coin.
I do know this is true. EAC standards are not used by the TPGS to grade copper. That seems silly to me. So a very tiny group of collectors broke away from the industry standards or did the industry and TPGS's break away from the EAC. More confusion for all of us. I once posted that I believe this "Net" grading crap was a "folly." So far, nothing in this discussion has changed my mind.
I think this subject belongs in an EAC meeting with the copper experts but I guess they don't need to discuss it as you informed me that almost all copper is net graded. Perhaps, this net grading thing is much too complicated to discuss at a coin club.
HELP!
Net grading is mostly used as click-bait on eBay.
LQQK! Unc early dollar!...click...Unc details, net VF.
Cheers
Bob
I look at it as a coin that if it did not have any problem it will get a straight grade, But that's just me dumb Type2.
Hoard the keys.
I've been a member of EAC for around 30 years.
From the EAC website (likely posted by Shawn Yancey) at http://www.earlycoppercoins.com/What-is-EAC-grading_ep_45-1.html :
What is EAC grading?
EAC grading is always a "hot-topic," so I am going to take a crack at putting my perspective on it here!
Basically, EAC grading is an approach that is more conservative in general than market-grading or slab-grading. For example, an EAC member will not grade a coin in an AU50 holder as an AU if the coin has NO LUSTER! If the coin has AU wear but no luster, an EAC member would grade it as EF45 at best. And if there is a MS-graded coin in a holder that has mint state luster but also has a light rub from circulation, the EAC grade would be AU at best!
The basic process of EAC-grading starts with the ANA Grading Guide. If you don't have one, spend a few bucks and pick one up. But keep in mind, that is just a STARTING point - the real trick to becoming an expert grader is to look at as many coins as possible! If you are not able to look at as many coins in person as you would like, then another excellent resource are auction catalogs, particularly those that incorporate EAC-grading. As of today, the best source for those are the Goldberg catalogs, since the grading is done by long-time EAC grading expert Bob Grellman. Many of the Goldberg catalogs are posted online, so you can spend lots of time browsing the photos of early coppers and comparing those photos to Bob Grellman's description of the coins. One of the things that I really struggled with starting off were the grades from VF20 to EF40. It's pretty easy to peg a VF20 or an EF40, but what about the three grades in between (25, 30, 35)? The short answer is that you just have to look at enough coins to be able to make that determination.
Once you get a good feel for the starting grade of the coin, it's time to make some deductions for any problems, and herein lies the core of the problem with EAC-grading. Let's say that we have a 1798 large cent that is a VF20 or better according to the ANA grading guide. The coin is original with nice color, but there are three tiny rim bumps that are visible only on the reverse. So how much do we knock off the grade for those 3 tiny rim bumps? That answer is going to be DIFFERENT for darn near everybody! For somebody putting the coin into an album where the reverse won't even be visible, they might not knock off ANY points from the grade (VF20+ net VF20). But for the person whose main focus for their collection is SYMMETRY, then those tiny rim nicks might be a huge problem and a huge deduction (VF20+ net F12). I have two points to make on this: FIRST, man-made problems are typically more of a deduction than mint-made defects. For example, a coin that has been cleaned (man-made defect) will typically be graded harsher than a coin that was struck on a planchet with flaws (mint-made defect). Furthermore, deliberate damage is worse than "regular damage" that might have been incurred simply from circulation. For example, a coin that has been whizzed (mechanically polished to make the surfaces smoother) would be treated less kindly than one that has several tiny nicks from being in somebody's pocket. SECOND, some people use what I will call the "would I rather" approach to net grading, and it goes like this: would I rather have this VF20 with slight problems, or that F12 with no problems"? If you would rather have the VF20 with problems, then the "net grade" is F12 or F15, since you like that coin BETTER than the F12. If you would rather have the F12 without problems, then the net grade on the VF20 would be F12 or LOWER, since you think the F12 is a better coin.
So as you can see, if you have ten different people assign an EAC grade to a coin, you are probably going to have AT LEAST three different net grades, because different people have different opinions of the various problems that these coins are afflicted with, and they are going to punish the coin according to how much that particular problem bothers them.
Now let's throw another wrinkle into the equation: die states and various variety peculiarities! Typically, coins struck from broken dies are going to be unevenly struck, either in isolated parts of the coin, or else over the entire coin. Since the dies are broken, some of the pressure from the strike is directed into the broken parts of the die instead of onto the surfaces of the coin, and this causes not only cracks and cuds, but also poorly struck areas. So how does that affect the grade? The short answer is that it really shouldn't affect the grade, but that it probably could affect the value. I think most people are like me in that they would actually PREFER an early copper with a dramatic, devastating crack or rim break, but there are also those that prefer fully-struck, early die state coins with even strikes on both sides and all details fully-developed. So a coin that is really a VF20+ by details but exhibits some areas of weakness due to the die state might be assigned two different EAC grades by those different people.
Furthermore, many varieties are just "struck that way." A great example is the 1804 large cent: they are all struck such that the top left corner of the reverse is always weak, and as the dies broke and the two cuds developed, that area gets even weaker still. Somebody that is not an expert on 1804 large cents might look at that coin and think it was unevenly worn in that area, when in fact, it was not struck up in that area from the very start. In cases like these, you just have to assign a grade based on the REST of the coin, knowing that the top left corner of that 1804 is ALWAYS going to look that way. In addition to making you a better grader, learning the different characteristics of the varieties can also be a huge plus with respect to authenticity. For example, there was recently a very convincing 1804 large cent being offered on ebay that I knew right away was a fake because the left reverse was much stronger than the right. The real coins just don't come that way! Educate yourself!
Okay, back to the final portion of EAC grading, and this one is a little bit simpler. Once you have assigned a starting grade, made a calculation of the deductions based on the problems to arrive at a net grade, the final step is to assign a CONDITION to the coin. The condition refers to the color and overall eye appeal of the coin, and there are 5 possible choices: Choice, Average Plus, Average, Average Minus, and Scudzy. With a few exceptions, this part of the grade is usually less controversial. For example, with the 1798 illustrated above with 3 tiny reverse rim bumps, MOST people would call that coin AVERAGE because it is totally original with nice surface and color. Depending on how incredible the color and surfaces are, some might even call it PLUS, and on the flipside, if the color and surfaces are sort of lackluster or below average, then some might call it MINUS. But typically there is more agreement in this area than the rest, and once again, the more coins you look at, the easier it will be for you to know what an "average" coin should look like.
So back to our example, I think my EAC grade for our illustration coin would be VF20+ net F15 Average. The rim bumps are tiny, the coin is original, the color is a pretty light tan, and the surfaces are clean for the grade. So, what's it worth? Now that is a whole 'nother can of worms!
Posted courtesy of EAC.
W. David Perkins Numismatics - http://www.davidperkinsrarecoins.com/ - 25+ Years ANA, ANS, NLG, NBS, LM JRCS, LSCC, EAC, TAMS, LM CWTS, CSNS, FUN
edited to add: Having read the preceding post, WD, @WDP
My opinion having been directly solicited by the OP, I suggest he flog flag himself for self-abuse.
You are making this matter needlessly complicated. Get Scott Travers' grading book written in the mid 1990s. There are your technical standards. They are a starting point. If you don't agree with the grade of a particular coin per its plastic, don't buy it. I don't like 80-90% of the coins I see for this reason.
Unfortunately, these standards have become fluid for most coin denominations in the higher grades, so you need to know what, for example an MS 66 Barber Dime should look like. You will often find what you think are MS 65 Barber Dimes in MS 66 holders, or an MS 66 Barber Dime priced midway or closer to MS 67 money. You don't buy them. Simple.
As I wrote before, a net graded coin is one with a problem that the TPGs believe to be too nice to be bodybagged, so they ding it a grade or two, per my earlier examples.
Recent auction results provide a guideline re the worth of a particular coin in a particular grade. What is your particular coin worth? I have no idea. As you pointed out, you can't grade accurately from photos, but the auction results will give you a guideline. Unless you have a liner coin or it has exceptional eye appeal for the grade, expect to get on the lower end of the auction pricing for it: you're probably not selling to an end user and the buyer has to make some money on the coin.
PCGS coin facts images can be helpful in providing examples of how recently graded coins appear. But they are just images.
Unless you are looking at pre 1835 material, Capped Bust Halves or some kinds of gold, if you know a series well, grading shouldn't be all that difficult for most classic coinage.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
@WDP
Thank you for taking the time to post! I'll echo @Hydrant.
This is one of the most informative posts I can remember. I'm sure most on this thread will agree. Now, I have some reading to absorb. I'm going to have some difficult questions after I read your post. I hope you and others stick around and continue to post in this thread before I return.
For example: Right off when I read that "...EAC grading is an approach that is more conservative in general than market-grading or slab-grading," the first thought that comes to my mind is:
What is the difference with market acceptable grading (TPGS's, all the major grading guides, and the majority of collectors), conservative grading, and silly, inaccurate grading by an ignorant (uninformed, uneducated) collector or dealer?
I'm not trying to change EAC standards. I actually learned to grade coins in the late 1960's using the Sheldon System as printed in Penny Whimsy. I quote from that book for others reading this: "Every early cent has a character of its own. Incidentally, Sheldon mentions an example of "Gradflation" taking place even back then! What I failed to find anywhere in that book - the bible for early cents and how to grade them - was any mention of NET GRADING.
I've been told that coin grading has evolved and continues to evolve even today. So, I'm going to guess that sometime in the past a Large cent collector or dealer (Robinson?) came up with a new grading system. Unfortunately, to my mind when a person tries to combine everything about a coin into one grade we are left with nothing but confusion. Using your example, an EAC specialist grades a coin with an AU amount of detail left as an XF because it has no luster. Now, if I see an EAC graded XF without a photo I'll have absolutely no idea what it will look like! Using net grading, I'll bet I can get that AU copper coin down to VF! Some scratches, rim problems, a scuzzy surface, am I correct? Now send me the coin and surprise me. I say folly. I was taught that coins were graded in the "Old Days" (before even Sheldon) so they could be described to another collector who could not see them.
Anyway, thanks for the marvelous post. I'll be reading it and coming up with more questions. That's all for now.
Going higher is market grading
Going lower is net grading
from PCGS grading guide
The above quote "Copper" only works if one accepts an unprovable assumption about "uncirculated."
Friction, rub, wear are all the same thing and it does not matter how they occurred. To claim that a coin with visible wear is somehow "uncirculated" is nonsense - that the coin did not circulate in some manner can never be established. Therefore the premise is invalid and any conclusion is spurious.
Lots of double eagles repatriated from Europe have obvious wear - from circulating among banks and counting rooms. But by the quoted section, they can be called and "graded" as "uncirculated."
The "market" can only determine price/value -- never condition.
Here's an example of what I believe to be a "net-graded" coin. It's in a PCGS XF-40 holder, but clearly the coin's level and wear and strike confer a higher, at least XF-45 grade. If the coin was a Philly mint product, it would most likely be in a details/scratched/damaged holder, but it was minted in Dahlonega, and so despite the obvious scratches, it's in a straight, albeit lower-graded holder.
'dude
This is the coin I was referring to earlier. It's in a PCGS MS62 holder:
Great thread. Very informative.
Rare high quality coins, potential paradigms can be created with a form of net grading.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection