@Insider2 said:
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!
The TPGs all net grade up to point. Beyond that point, it's put in a problem holder.
Essentially, they do it the same way as the EAC or even the old ANACS, just to a different scale and with the aforementioned limit (which varies not only by TPG but also by the series/coin/issue being considered).
Because in the end I think each method is simply a means to the same end. That end being pricing (or ranking) coins.
They each -- EAC, old ANACS, NGC, PCGS, etc. -- just get to that end slightly differently.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I tell collectors all the time just because you read it some where does not make it the truth, Just because you don't see it written down does not mean it was not done.
It's no wonder some collectors just look at the labels and not the coin but once you do the work you can tell one from the other in hand and some of us will say you rec a gift if it's in the wrong holder or a net grade holder but how ever they say it.
I see it as a problem coin that some one will buy.
Very interesting thread. What it all boils down to is - opinions about opinions. All grading, unfortunately, is an opinion, since there are no real standards. Then, the opinion is diluted even more, by departing from the technical points and adding the ever nebulous 'eye appeal'. So really, net grading is a further dilution of an opinion, and yes, likely based on rarity/value. As long as we allow these 'vapor' conditions in our hobby, we will never have true grading. A computerized system, based entirely on technical points, is the ideal method of grading. Let they sellers/buyers decide the value of 'pretty'... I have said it for years, let's get the fluff out of the grading and stick to the facts. I doubt we ever will achieve true professionalism until we do that. Cheers, RickO
A good thread, and interesting topic, thanks for starting. Also nice use of the "Socratic/ intentionally obtuse" method of inquiry, and kudos to all those with the patience to elucidate and elaborate important concepts in the evaluation of the relative Quality of rare coins.
My comments will not apply to coins readily available and practically affordable in gem, problem-free condition, as i agree with most here, to avoid any sort of problem pieces. Why compromise in such instances? Just get a very nice, beautiful, gorgeous example of that common coin with whatever grading and sticker bells and whistles and flashing lights you prefer, and proudly show it off. Easy-peasy!
But what if I'm not rich, but would still like to own and study, and enjoy the experience of having in my possession, a coin that is rare in Any condition, and is prohibitively expensive when PCGS slabbed problem-free, even in very low grade like Fair or AG, with almost all details missing? Is there any joy in buying, for example a 1796 dime with the reverse almost smooth, even if the holder has a green bean? As a type coin, I want to be able to see that eagle!
So, a collector like me considers a coin in a "genuine" holder, with enough detail remaining to enjoy looking at, and enough damage to make it affordable.
HOW affordable is where the Net grading comes in, and as others have said, individual preferences differ. I do like and use the "would you rather have" method. To me, a fair "Net Grade", and therefore Price (which is the important concern here, as I'm actually considering buying it, and thus am not one of those who Avoid at any price, which means going without such a coin entirely) ... is the price at which I'd prefer this problem coin, -Overall- to a coin without the problem(s) but with SIGNIFICANTLY more wear.
So, my 1796 dime for example, is PCGS genuine (98).
I consider this coin to have Good+ details, minor damage, decent eye appeal for the type, net AG.
Those who don't, can't, or simply won't "understand" net grading (pricing), simply will not own such a coin, nor will those who DO understand net grading just fine, but do not agree with the assessment. That's what makes a market, and allows for every coin to have liquidity (or not) at certain and various price points.
Another aspect of this topic that has been discussed is "quiet" Net Grading by the reputable TPGs, when the Problem, although it exists, does not, in their opinion, "cross the line" and prohibit a numerical grade, but does involve lowering it to reflect the presence of the minor problem(s), and therefore the Quality (value) of the piece.
Here, as an example, is a scarce coin, an 1825 B-1 quarter, in a PCGS -graded holder. What's the numerical grade?
To the OP, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of the book 'Grading Guide for Early American Copper Coins'. It's essentially an entire book dedicated to answering your question. Here's an e-sylum review. http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n19a07.html
To just add a point, with EAC there have been arguments on how to net grade particular coins for 30+ years and the arguments only get resolved when one of the participants dies. So we won't resolve it here, we can just continue the argument.
@msch1man said: "To the OP, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of the book 'Grading Guide for Early American Copper Coins'. It's essentially an entire book dedicated to answering your question."
Thanks! Have it, reading it. That's what "sparked" the discussion.
Look, I'm two steps above a "nobody." Nevertheless, I have "problems" with some of the things in the book. It is partly my fault as I was too busy to follow through on some things I should have done.
I cannot magnify your slab but that coin is no longer a Fine-12! In my lifetime, that coin was 100% correctly graded as it sits. I've got about two dozen slabs from the two top services that were bought in the 1980's. They are so under graded today that I use them to prove that standards have ...choke...evolved.
Yes BryceM, that's correct, a fairly recent PCGS slab and an example of Net Grading in action. The coin has VF details, and shows the die features that make the marriage distinctive, however there is some minor pitting that could be either slight environmental damage, or small planchet flaws, or a combination, that warrant a reduction in grade, but, in the opinion of the graders there, at the time, did not reach the level of severity of a "genuine/details" holder. At first glance, most folks, including myself, think, "wow, nice coin for a Fine!" and then on closer inspection, think, "Ah, ok, I see why the downgrade, still, would rather have this coin than an ordinary Fine12, and certainly better than a VG10, so OK, I get it!"
Here's another PCGS F12:
The mark in the obverse field can be seen as the reason it's not in a F15 or maybe even VF20 holder..
Another example illustrating this concept for the weekend, Here is a half dime that I bought many years ago, in an old small ANACS "Details/Net Grade" holder.
Here's a discussion at the time, about the Net Grading:
@Baley said: "Another example illustrating this concept for the weekend, Here is a half dime that I bought many years ago, in an old small ANACS "Details/Net Grade" holder."
Question: What grade was on the ANACS "net" label for this coin? I read the thread you provided and I was astonished at the high grading opinions. IMHO, that coin is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a VF! On a "true" VF - without all the commercial malarkey, gradeflation, rarity-bump, and newly-educated, brain-washed into the modern system guys...a VF coin should be sharp with wear on the highest surfaces. The coin you have shown has no high surfaces remaining at all. I should hope ANACS graded it Fine "holed" which is not a net grade. If they put it in a VG-10 holder due to the hole, that would make the case that net grading took place. Shame on the TPGS that assigned a VF-35 details grade but that would indicate an example of net graded-up or gradflation.
Thanks for this @WEP and thank you EAC for providing the rope to tie my "folly" comment up to a tall tree and prepare for a hanging. My comments are in bold between the lines. I do this only to be easily seen. Buckle up:
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.
OK, EAC has established its own grading system.
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.
That's the first BIG problem with EAC grading!
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!
Thank Goodness. They got one correct! The coin IS an AU. So the EAC grades some AU coins AU and other AU coins XF. I've called this approach a "folly." Does anyone besides me think there is something "off" with this approach?
The basic process of EAC-grading starts with the ANA Grading Guide.
All I hear is that no one uses the ANA grading guide. I guess EAC likes it. While the standards in older editions were not up to date to the market the latest edition is pretty good. I find Grading Coins by Photographs and the PCGS online guide to be better but let's stick with the ANA book here.
If you don't have one, (I have one or two copies of every edition) 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!
That's for sure!
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.
I don't recall seeing a description of 25 or 35 anywhere. Hopefully, it will be in the EAC Grading Guide I'm reading. I'll look ahead tonight when I get home tonight.
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.
Ah, what? EAC uses a grading system while admitting right off that THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH EAC GRADING! That rope around this "pig-of-a-system" is getting tighter. They are making my case. Now, I see I have been wrong all these years. Previously, I thought "net" grading was stupid. Now, I see the light! The entire EAC grading system in addition to net grading is the "folly" I've always said it was! I cannot wait to read how this all works.
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!
LOL. And this is a standardized system for grading copper? Wait, EAC did not say they have ANY STANDARDS yet. What is expressed above as "different for everybody" sounds like the way all of us think about grading opinions.
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).
Many of us don't like coins with any problems. Unfortunately, I guess old copper coins rarely come without them.
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.
Finally, I'm in total agreement with this. Put this into "BEST ANSWER" column!
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.
"I would rather" not need to post my opinions to this so I'll pass on commenting on the above because in all honesty, I don't understand it with a single reading and I still have a long way to go here. It sounds like I can grade a coin by how I should rather have it grade. Perhaps I shall return to it when I proof read my comments at the end of this post.
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.
Actually, I do see the wacky nature of this non-grading "grading system." You see, I've learned from the numismatist who developed the original, true "Technical" Grading System in 1973 used to identify coins for the internal records of the ANA's Certification Service that there are only three things necessary to have an "ideal" grading system.
1. The system should be simple. 2. The system should be precise. 3. The system should never change.
NONE OF THESE ARE PRESENT IN EITHER NET GRADING OR EAC GRADING
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.
Holy cow! I AGREE 100%. All of these can affect a coin's value but none of these things affect that "ideal grading system." That's because DETERMINING THE CONDITION OF PRESERVATION OF A COIN - the original purpose for developing the true technical grading system as used in Washington, DC - HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP TO A COIN's VALUE!!! Sometimes the short answer is better than "wiggling-around" with a long answer while trying to make something so obviously STUPID sound very erudite.
The true Technical grading I was taught is very easy. Grade the coin's actual condition while removing all the variables such as toning, value, strike. Once the condition is determined, add the strike, eye-appeal, color but don't change the grade. EAC is trying to grade a coin using every possible variable they can think of and with copper COLOR makes it even more difficult.
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.
THANK you EAC. This "condition" thing can have two meanings. It is like the words "Uncirculated/Mint State." IMO, the condition of a coin refers to its grade. The EAC has limited it to the coin's surface and eye-appeal.
Comments are solicited.
PS I thought grading was done to put a value on a coin. While I can see that a TPGS might, I cannot see how the EAC does?
That 1797 half dime with 13 stars was in an old, small white ANACS slab from when they used to Net grade problem coins. They called it Fine Details, Holed Net Fair-2. And I paid the equivalent of Fair price guide.
@Baley said:
That 1797 half dime with 13 stars was in an old, small white ANACS slab from when they used to Net grade problem coins. They called it Fine Details, Holed Net Fair-2. And I paid the equivalent of Fair price guide.
Not that it matters but I agree with the grade of Fine "holed." You agreed with the price of a Fair whatever that was and the world-goes-around. I guess if it were in a holder graded Fine "holed" w/o a net grade of Fair, you would have still determined the price.
IMO, a TPGS should grade coins and let the buyer and seller determine the price. No net grading crap. I'll bet a "GT NET G" poll on a coin would show how stupid "net" grading is. My net grade for that coin may have been G-6, VG-8, or even VG-10. Who knows, but not Fair - anything.
IMHO, ANACS graders are not qualified to place a retail value on a coin - except perhaps for a Morgan dollar. Heck, even the auction houses cannot get it right much of the time!
OP , net grading is what a dealer does when you try to sell him a coin. He looks at the slab sees that it says MS65 and offers you grey sheet for an MS 63. If its raw its worse , then you will find the Gem he sold you , even when you point out that the word GEM is clearly in his handwriting is now an EF
Insider2, you asked what Net Grading is, how it works, why it is used, and invited us to provide examples of how and why we've seen and understood it to be used, and used it our selves, which many of us have done.
Many of the responses have been well thought out, and IMO highly logical, reasonable, and practical. Other responses have been expressions (with varying levels of success) of wistful and/or cynical humor.
Your opinion of how the Net Grading of coins SHOULD work (or variously, how it should NOT work, or that you think it shouldn't be done at all) is noted.
For the record, in my examples, none of the TPGs have set the price of the transactions, that was indeed between me and the seller (and, of course, the other bidders). The TPGs have simply offered their opinions of the authenticity and grade ( Overall Quality) of the item, in various formats.
In fact, when you said, "My net grade for that coin may have been G-6, VG-8, or even VG-10. Who knows, but not Fair - anything." you have done exactly the same thing: offered your composite opinion of the piece, for which I thank you.
One more example, in this case, the coin was offered simply with a pass-or-play price (which was equivalent to a "problem-free" Fine-12 or so) but with no other discussion with the seller of any "Net Grade" or anything else.
I took a look at the slab:
Saw it in hand:
and took a glass to some of the detail
and thought to myself that, although lightly cleaned, the coin remains attractive (even if a little bright) and my opinion of a fair Net Grade to myself, and (hopefully) to the coin market in general, as it actually exists is probably higher than Fine-12, as I'm not seeing many hairlines at all, much less 40+ points worth of them. So I bought it.
@Baley said:
Insider2, you asked what Net Grading is, how it works, why it is used, and invited us to provide examples of how and why we've seen and understood it to be used, and used it our selves, which many of us have done.
Many of the responses have been well thought out, and IMO highly logical, reasonable, and practical. Other responses have been expressions (with varying levels of success) of wistful and/or cynical humor.
Your opinion of how the Net Grading of coins SHOULD work (or variously, how it should NOT work, or that you think it shouldn't be done at all) is noted.
For the record, in my examples, none of the TPGs have set the price of the transactions, that was indeed between me and the seller (and, of course, the other bidders). The TPGs have simply offered their opinions of the authenticity and grade ( Overall Quality) of the item, in various formats.
In fact, when you said, "My net grade for that coin may have been G-6, VG-8, or even VG-10. Who knows, but not Fair - anything." you have done exactly the same thing: offered your composite opinion of the piece, for which I thank you.
Then perhaps you agree that net grading sucks, as even net grading is an opinion that has NO Precision. I'll bet if given a Large cent in hand to grade the majority of TPGS grades and knowledgeable folks (forgetting about value/rarity, and specific damage - in your case a hole) would get much closer to the coin's actual grade than the best group of EAC experts with their convoluted this-an-that approach addressing all the variables that come into EAC grading as posted above.
@Baley said:
One more example, in this case, the coin was offered simply with a pass-or-play price (which was equivalent to a "problem-free" Fine-12 or so) but with no other discussion with the seller of any "Net Grade" or anything else.
I took a look at the slab:
Saw it in hand:
and took a glass to some of the detail
and thought to myself that, although lightly cleaned, the coin remains attractive (even if a little bright) and my opinion of a fair Net Grade to myself, and (hopefully) to the coin market in general, as it actually exists is probably higher than Fine-12, as I'm not seeing many hairlines at all, much less 40+ points worth of them. So I bought it.
Here is all I will say and this is with all due respect to you as anyone who can afford a coin like this is doing something right. Although I cannot blow the image up to check for major problems IMO ANYONE who does not recognize this coin is About Uncirculated is both BLIND and UNINFORMED. I suggest you make that dealer your only source for coins if he put a price of Fine-12 on it and it is not plugged or repaired - just cleaned.
Yesterday, I saw a presentation on grading Mint State Copper and one on Copper Coin Preservation by the EAC President on another Internet forum. Before commenting further, I wish to stress again that:
While I can discuss grading (as we all do) I cannot force my opinion on any person or organization.
While I can disagree with the way a person or organization grades (often in a snarky manner - sorry, it's in
my nature) I do respect them as numismatists.
While I am still reading the EAC grading guide for copper, I wish to continue to point out what I consider to be the "folly" of "net" grading and EAC Mint State grading. First, I learned that EAC grading is based on the grading standards of the 1950's and 60's. YES! I wish we all could go back to the days of strict conservative grading when a coin in Mint State had no trace of wear. I learned that EAC rarely uses any of the lower grades besides 60 or 63 and I knew a coins color was extremely important to copper collectors. The plates in the book will give you a good idea of the natural colors found on old copper.
The video was going along good until this: EAC does not tolerate marks on coins considered to be Mint State. Therefore, a marked up, lustrous Mint State coin is Net graded down to AU! WHAT folly! THE GRADES OF MS-61 or MS-62 WERE ADDED TO THE GRADING SYSTEM USED BY THE REST OF US TO DESCRIBE THOSE COINS!
Seems to me that some savvy folks can buy a Large cent from an EAC dealer and get an upgrade. Oh wait, those guys are not stupid. I'll bet they grade their Large cent AU and price it as an MS-63!
I wish there were a way to make some sense of this and combine TPG and EAC grading into one simple to understand and apply system.
IMO ANYONE who does not recognize this coin is About Uncirculated is both BLIND and UNINFORMED.
Well, probably almost all would agree that the strike is pretty nice (as it usually is for this BD-1 variety; it also is sometimes seen semi prooflike ), the DETAILS are AU or better, and the surfaces still glossy rather than lusterous. It does have a mark on the cheek under the eye that receives specific mention, as well as a couple of ticks in the fields. And, it has also been gently "shined up" in the past by proud owners, and possibly dipped, too, more recently. These factors get netted into the overall assessment of the quality.
Calling it AU would not be accurate without additional Qualifiers that result in a Net grade, which can very well be a combination of simply additional words, which is fine and dandy when it's a hypothetical and philosophical exercise among disinterested parties chatting for fun.
Where it begins to Matter is when a transaction is being seriously contemplated, because all interested parties must find an agreeable dollar value corresponding to a numerical value along a Numberline from 1 to 70, versus what other coins of similar Overall Quality have sold for in the recent past.
To try to "standardize" HOW MUCH all of the different combinations of imperfection besides perfect even wear (classical Technical Grade) Matter to different individuals, is what would be "folly".
It really depends on how big and bad looking the hole, bend, scratch, rim dent, cleaning, etc. etc. ARE. And, again, very few collectors bother with "problem" modern coins unless very rare and in-demand varieties, and always, they are heavily discounted. And again, the wealthy don't have to worry about it for the rare, expensive early coins, they just get one of the best ones and pay what it costs.
Everyone else who WILL consider buying and selling Net Graded coins is different in how much they will tolerate, how much they "cost" in terms of grading points, and thus how to Rate or Score certain "problems" that most early coins have.
That's why PCGS and NGC don't do it, and that's why ANACS stopped. (Assigning a Net number by deducting from the Detail grade for problems beyond normal and typical circulation wear and damage) because opinions vary.
The whole point of Grading it, by any method, is to estimate the state of preservation, I think, obviously, that it's worth more than a Fine and less than an AU, but where, exactly, such a piece falls on the value numberline, is the interesting question, and one that will necessarily lack Precision, as it has to be case-by-case.
@MikeInFL said: "What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?"
Please do some thinking and read my posts again. Nevermind, as long as this kind of thinking continues...
Mike, let me ask how you would handle the following situation as you seem to be a very savvy numismatist from what I have read in many of your posts.
You are the professional TPGS instructor of the Basic Grading class at the ANA Summer Seminar. Now, please explain to me that a Large cent is XF-45 when in fact the coin looks like a "gem" uncirculated MS-65 to my young YN eyes.
That, in a nutshell, is why the EAC grading system belongs in the hands of the tiny number of copper experts, renown professional numismatists, and professional copper dealers. I'm just little O'l me who will never have the knowledge to publish excellently researched/needed books as Grelman, Noyes, and others have done. I use their books on a daily basis - honest. However, remember I posted that I had to drop out of EAC as I was not intelligent enough to absorb their newsletter!!
So, you are the teacher now. Please explain what you would tell the YN who is very intelligent and who brought three grading books to class and has matched the coin to the image/description of an AU-58 coin. Why is the coin only an XF? Why does a coin club condemn the way all the major TPGS's grade? What good are the grading guides when a group of folks has chosen not to follow them and make up their own "wacky" system where a coin is not Mint State if it has some marks!
I sure hope you have the time and take the time to answer these questions. Any EAC grading instructors on this thread? What happened to WDP?
Very interesting discussion, thank you. I have a few early coppers graded by Bob Grellman and a few more that I've either bought from Tom Reynolds or had him grade for me at shows. I am not trying to say that I understand more than a few percent of how they come to their conclusions, however when given the opportunity at my local show and having Mr. Reynold's inventory to use as examples I ask him questions as to why certain examples are graded a particular way, and the wealth of knowledge at hand and the answers I receive are elucidating, to say the least. Like in real estate where the mantra is location, location, location...I want to think that in the copper arena, it's surface, surface, surface.
LOL. I asked a lot of simple questions in this discussion. Something does not make sense to me about EAC grading or net grading. I stated reasons and backed my disagreement with examples to possibly be debunked. Apparently, now I'm the bad guy for pointing out obvious flaws. NEWS FLASH, I didn't join this forum or any other to make long-lasting friendships. If I posted the way I wish to I would have been quickly banned.
Where I come from, 2+2 does not equal 3 or 5! I've been a student of coin grading for almost fifty-five years. There have been changes. I've trained myself to find defects. That includes coins and opinions. I want answers so I can become more informed.
So far, aside from Baley, I mostly get this type of nonsense:
@TommyType said: "I think most of us have given up on the "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to?", rants."
What I think is most of you do not have the ability to defend the stupid, illogical system of grading I address in this discussion. I already said it cannot be changed, the Koolade is too sweet.
I'm hoping that more folks who know what they are talking about answer all my questions for the benefit of all of us here - not just me. Grading is a subjective thing so if you are one of the "experts" who wish to call an AU coin XF - PLEASE KEEP THAT Ah...nonsense TO YOURSELF or explain how that makes any sense to a beginning collector!!
BTW, I'm still waiting to find out who invented net grading and when. As I wrote, I couldn't find it mentioned in Sheldon's book that was written before some of you "experts" were born.
Edit: Oops, how did I leave Mr. Reynolds out of my post above. He is a scholar and a gentleman who has helped me on several occasions as has Mr. Grellman.
So far, aside from Baley, I mostly get this type of nonsense:
@TommyType said: "I think most of us have given up on the "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to?", rants."
What I think is most of you do not have the ability to defend the stupid, illogical system of grading I address in this discussion. I already said it cannot be changed, the Koolade is too sweet.
Well, to be honest, you left out the "smiley". Beyond that, yeah, it was probably nonsense.
But you have gone from "Please teach me" to "I demand you defend something I've already called stupid and illogical". I don't think you should be surprised if there isn't a line forming..... (I don't use Net Grading either, so I'm not in line.....)
@TommyType said: "...you have gone from "**Please teach me" to "I demand you defend something I've already called stupid and illogical". I don't think you should be surprised if there isn't a line forming..... (I don't use Net Grading either, so I'm not in line.....)
Thanks for adding to the discussion again. Here is your
I looked for the "Please teach me" in my post but could not find it; however, that is exactly what one intention was for this discussion. Teach all of us. Some members posted. Great!
The fact that I did not agree with their posts, refuted their examples, and asked more (UNANSWERED) questions led to one member writing that this was an informative discussion. I had hoped to read more discussion and receive answers to my questions. IMHO, there is no line forming because EAC and net grading CANNOT be logically defended.
I don't use EAC grading methods and very rarely net grade. I have learned that copper "experts" think our host and the other three TPGS cannot grade copper correctly. To my mind, that's like the "misinformed," calling the "knowledgeable" folks ignorant because they don't agree with a complicated, illogical, fantasy grading system (not precise) - developed by what numismatist and when?
I'll try to make sense of this to the coin club but I don't see how yet.
I think I shall post some "Guess the Net Grade discussions." I may learn some more.
All grades below 70 are Net grades: the final grade opinion is Net of any and all reasons the coin is not perfect, including wear.
If you object to the term Net, propose another word, Overall, Composite, Total, the concept remains the same, appraise the quality of the coin.
It is the distinction of a "Line" of acceptable damage versus not-acceptable that is confusing, because opinions differ on how much various defects Matter.
Most of us are just about done tilting at this windmill, apparently.
@Baley said: "All grades below 70 are Net grades: the final grade opinion is Net of any and all reasons the coin is not perfect, including wear."
You are referring to EAC grading correct? Otherwise...I disagree. For example the grade of VF has a specific (classroom) definition backed up by images of the standard VF grade on line and in published grading guides. There is nothing "net" about that.
@Baley continued: "If you object to the term Net, propose another word, Overall, Composite, Total, the concept remains the same, appraise the quality of the coin."
If you are NOT referring to "Net" grading, I cannot do it with one word. It takes something like: additional loss of detail from wear." There is no net grading in the normal, accepted grading system used by the TPGS's and most of us.
@Baley said: "It is the distinction of a "Line" of acceptable damage versus not-acceptable that is confusing, because opinions differ on how much various defects Matter."
We agree 100% on this for both the normal grading system and the EAC system that uses "net" grading.
Finally @Baley ends with this: "Most of us are just about done tilting at this windmill, apparently."
Thanks for posting and providing images. You my be correct about other CU members. That's a shame. You see, if a windmill is getting old and derelict, or if it is not functioning in a manner it was designed for, IMO it needs to be torn down and burned so that it can be replaced with a better windmill.
PS Any idea who came up with "Net" grading and when?
It was the first caveman, about 50,000 years ago, who noticed that, in his opinion, This stone is a little bit better than That stone. And then your ancestor disagreed with his thought process.
I disagree. It had to be sometime after 1950 and before 1978. My guess is that Jack Robinson played all or a large part in developing the EAC net grading system. Correct? Not correct? Any others?
@Insider2 said: @MikeInFL said: "What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?"
Please do some thinking and read my posts again. Nevermind, as long as this kind of thinking continues...
Please don't infer I'm not reading your posts or thinking. I don't appreciate it and it is not conductive to a productive conversation. Thank you.
Mike, let me ask how you would handle the following situation as you seem to be a very savvy numismatist from what I have read in many of your posts.
You are the professional TPGS instructor of the Basic Grading class at the ANA Summer Seminar. Now, please explain to me that a Large cent is XF-45 when in fact the coin looks like a "gem" uncirculated MS-65 to my young YN eyes.
I would have to see the coin in question to be able to answer that question in any way except hypothetically.
But in short, I would tell them the same thing I first posted in this thread -- all the TPGs net grade. If the coin looks like a 65 but a TPG graded it 45, there's some problem (for instance an old cleaning) that I'm not seeing. If, on the other hand a TPG grades it 65 and the EAC 45, it's simply a difference in the way each organization grades.
Which, was of course, the point of my valuation question. In the end (i.e. price) they converge.
That, in a nutshell, is why the EAC grading system belongs in the hands of the tiny number of copper experts, renown professional numismatists, and professional copper dealers. I'm just little O'l me who will never have the knowledge to publish excellently researched/needed books as Grelman, Noyes, and others have done. I use their books on a daily basis - honest. However, remember I posted that I had to drop out of EAC as I was not intelligent enough to absorb their newsletter!!
The EAC method is no harder to discern than the TPG method. If anything, EAC is a bit more transparent in their grading methods.
But in the end they are both subjective.
So, you are the teacher now. Please explain what you would tell the YN who is very intelligent and who brought three grading books to class and has matched the coin to the image/description of an AU-58 coin. Why is the coin only an XF? Why does a coin club condemn the way all the major TPGS's grade? What good are the grading guides when a group of folks has chosen not to follow them and make up their own "wacky" system where a coin is not Mint State if it has some marks!
I would have a detailed discussion about the coin in question. Like above, I would focus on whatever might be missed in the evaluation of the coin that led to the grading discrepancy.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you are saying here -- I do not recall reading of your posts on dropping out of the EAC -- but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state. Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, so perhaps that's what you're referring to here.
That said, I think it comes down to how the EAC and TPGs define "mint state" -- TPGs are more focused on luster impairment and the EAC takes into account other issues (like hits) that can net a grade a coin that has never circulated well below mint state.
Take care....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Thanks for taking the time to reply!!! I'll comment on your full post later but for now...this contradiction:
Mike, you posted "...but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state."
I watched the president of the EAC state this in a video about grading MS Large cents!!
Then you added this which I take as a contradiction: "Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, ...
That is certainly one of the things that is not logical. IMO, numismatists should not have five different grading systems. I'm using "five" to drive my point home because we all should know there are not that many - maybe only three...LOL.
Best to you also and appreciate your spunk and efforts to inform/educate us!!
I don't see those as contradictory at all. They are both (at least in attempt if not effect) trying to say that an otherwise mint state coin with hits can grade net out to sub-MS 60 by EAC grading.
And I have not seen the video of the EAC president, so it's tough for me to know the context of the quote you shared, but I suspect what he was saying is that if a coin has some hits an otherwise mint state coin can be netted to below MS 60 because of them -- which is in line with my comments on the topic.
And your observation about five different grading systems is precisely why I asked the (rhetorical) question I did in my second response to this thread: What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?"
The point being this: Let's presume for a moment that you only know how to grade to PCGS standards. You walk up to CVM's table and he has a nice large cent in EAC 45 that's marked $1000. Instead of trying to agree or disagree with the EAC grade, which you are unsure of your ability to do, and cross-reference for the value in the EAC price guides, why not simply take the $1000 and use that to get the approximate PCGS price (and therefore grade) and pass or play on that information? In the example I chose, it would be an XF45 which is also valued at $1000. That way you can validate what you're seeing without the requisite EAC grading skills.
Because what I think you will find is that regardless if the coin is in a PCGS slab or an EAC cotton bag and envelope, they end up producing coins that are very consistent in price (or rank)....which is the point to begin with.
Bottom line: Nobody grades coins for the sake of grading them. Grades are a means to an end -- pricing (or ranking) them. And that end can be reached a number of ways and it doesn't always require an in-depth knowledge of the possible (or even used) grading standards. More to the point of this response: The price can be the means to translate between these standards.
Take care....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Bottom line: Nobody grades coins for the sake of grading them. Grades are a means to an end -- pricing (or ranking) them. And that end can be reached a number of ways and it doesn't always require an in-depth knowledge of the possible (or even used) grading standards. More to the point of this response: The price can be the means to translate between these standards.
Hey Mike, I found the video by the EAC president I quoted above. CU members may wish to view it as I don't have time yet to comment on your last two posts.
Except for this: Step over to the Large cent dealer's table with Little Johnny YN. See this XF coin for a $1000? Now open your grading guide and match the picture... What? AU? I know it also matches the PCGS AU-58 and the NGC AU-58 slabs we looked at on the other table for $1000.
Little Johnny YN, that should be a good lesson for you. A coin's grade does not matter- only its price. Well, you have to guess if the price is Ok because the grade on the coin is supposed to let you know what the price is. I guess the Large cent dealer may be playing a big game. Grade low and price high. That way, the customer will think he put one over on the dealer and got a really good deal.
I'm continuing my study of net grading and how undefined and impractical (I use the word "Folly") it is. It seems that all but one or two of its defenders/proponents have begged out of the discussion. I did read a Letter to the Editor in Numismatic News about a challenge on this subject made to a columnist by an esteemed member of EAC. I cannot wait to read the results. Anyway, I disagree that net grading is easy to learn as this poster claims:
@MikeInFL said: "The EAC method is no harder to discern than the TPG method. If anything, EAC is a bit more transparent in their grading methods. But in the end they are both subjective."
Grading can be very subjective when we include everyone in the equation. That includes most who are totally uninformed. In my experience, many others cannot identify an original coin from one that is not. I think that if we eliminate the ignorant from the group grading would not seem as subjective. For example, I think the opinions on most coins in the grading room of our host are graded very closely - no 1-2 point swings. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
That said, let's see what an esteemed author and copper expert has to say about the grading [FOLLY - my word] done by his group: "A word about net grading - i.e., assigning a sharpness grade, say XF-40, and then reducing it because of problems. This type of grading CAUSES MANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS, because everyone interprets problems differently, and therefore subtracts more or less from the sharpness grade according to their own preferences.
@MikeInFL continued: "...but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state. Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, so perhaps that's what you're referring to here. That said, I think it comes down to how the EAC and TPGs define "mint state" -- TPGs are more focused on luster impairment and the EAC takes into account other issues (like hits) that can net a grade a coin that has never circulated well below mint state.
Yes, some Mint State coins with marks are graded MS by EAC and other Mint State coins with marks are not. Some coins that never circulated can be net graded well below Mint State.
I never said it was easy, @Insider2, I was making a statement of equivalence in difficultly between two subjective measurement methods.
I would further argue that by using your logic anything subjective is folly -- which perhaps it is.
But it's the best way we have to grade/rank/price coins, even if there are different dialects in the language used to do so and you are (apparently) unable to discern and/or acknowledge them....but for some reason would rather disparage them.
Nobody said net grading was easy -- nor should it be. It is not an exact science. Reasonable people can disagree about things, particularly grading opinions -- it's just the nature of the beast and I think we'd be better off studying its innate behavior rather than arguing about its viscous subjectivity.
Respectfully....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
@MikeInFL said:
I never said it was easy, @Insider2, I was making a statement of equivalence in difficultly between two subjective measurement methods.
I would further argue that by using your logic anything subjective is folly -- which perhaps it is.
But it's the best way we have to grade/rank/price coins, even if there are different dialects in the language used to do so.
Thanks for your reply Mike. Speaking of everything being subjective, I think many things are. I'll try to paraphrase something said in a grading seminar back in the 1980's:
"We make subjective decisions about virtually everything. When you walk into the store to buy some fruit, do you pick the ripe, firm, full colored piece or the smelly, dark, squishy one with flies buzzing around it?"
What I'm saying in this thread is a small group of collectors/dealers/specialists have broken away from a system of grading used by most. This is OK, they can do as they wish. Unfortunately, rather than come up with a simple, precise, and better grading system they jumped off the cliff of reality into the foggy valley of folly. By their own admission in published books and videos the system is complicated, and has little relationship to the grading the rest of us attempt to use. I'll bet after reaching the advanced grading class at the Summer Seminar, a YN could go home to his coin club and teach the old guys how to grade. From what I read, it should be virtually impossible for me or any non-copper expert to duplicate that feat using Net grading - EVER!
Nevertheless, I'm going to continue my study in an attempt to cut thru the fog/folly so that one day I'll be able to look at a Mint State copper in a TPGS slab and be able to explain why it is graded XF by EAC standards. It is going to be a long and hopefully not impossible task.
As soon as I find a suitable coin, I plan to post a "GUESS THE NET GRADE" discussion. That should help all of us.
@Insider2 said:
I'm continuing my study of net grading and how undefined and impractical (I use the word "Folly") it is. ...
Yes, some Mint State coins with marks are graded MS by EAC and other Mint State coins with marks are not. Some coins that never circulated can be net graded well below Mint State.
I say F O L L Y
I have a very nice 1830 half dollar. Fully struck and NO trace of wear. Does have a big scratch in the field.
@Baley said: "I have a very nice 1830 half dollar. Fully struck and NO trace of wear. Does have a big scratch in the field."
Welcome back. I think both you and Mike are giving me a run for the money and providing lots of thoughtful insight to others who are just "lurking" in the thread.
BTW, I don't buy coins I can't see in hand and your coin is way out of my price range.
Besides, when I needed a MS coin with a scratch for a demonstration I made one like this: Wait! WOW, I was going to put a large scratch across this coin but look what I found: Die Chips. Now, it's a "keeper." Just pretend It has a scratch.
If you have a 1830 Half with no trace of wear, I should like to see it - and I claim to know the difference between strike softness and friction wear. Several years ago I was astonished to read that a famous, high-power, female numismatist who does not post here stated something to the effect that truly Mint State Capped Bust Half dollars were extremely rare! A very knowledgeable statement that I agree with.
Additionally, it should be very educational for all of us to see it and comment. For example, how long, how wide, how deep, and where (obverse/reverse/prime focal area) is the scratch? What is your net grade for the coin - VF, XF? I should probably grade it (if it is actually MS): Uncirculated "details" scratched. You and others can place a value on it and change its ACTUAL condition of preservation to something it is not. BTW, are Net graded coins ever sold "sight-unseen?" If that's the case, talk about all the possible big surprises in store for the buyer.
So, how about a photo and your thoughts about how the 1830 should be graded.
Ah, but it's more interesting as a thought experiment. For sake of argument, say coin is truly well struck and has no wear nor toning, nor any other marks worth singular mention, except for the definite and obvious scratch in the field.
Now, imagine further, that you have 10 such coins, all identical except for the one scratch on each one, and those are different in severity, the first a light. Thin 2 mm scratch on the reverse, then a slightly deeper and wider 3mm long scratch on the obverse under the date, and so on, with the 10th coin having a 15 mm long, very deep and ugly scratch right in front of Liberty's face.
No one is saying these coins' "actual condition of preservation" (aka "grade ") ranges from perhaps MS64 on down to perhaps AG.
We're saying that thinking about a Net grade allows one to think about and describe the condition at least somewhat analytically.
"Unc, scratched" in isolation has very little useful information content... because, Where and How bad is the Scratch (es)??
"UNC net 55" vs " UNC net 12" says much. You know about where each of the coins ranks in the above theoretical continuum.
Comments
Net grading is a reduction. Market grading is an appreciation.
Lance.
edited to say "Crap. frankcoins said that already."
is it like Net Neutrality in politic?
The TPGs all net grade up to point. Beyond that point, it's put in a problem holder.
Essentially, they do it the same way as the EAC or even the old ANACS, just to a different scale and with the aforementioned limit (which varies not only by TPG but also by the series/coin/issue being considered).
Because in the end I think each method is simply a means to the same end. That end being pricing (or ranking) coins.
They each -- EAC, old ANACS, NGC, PCGS, etc. -- just get to that end slightly differently.
I tell collectors all the time just because you read it some where does not make it the truth, Just because you don't see it written down does not mean it was not done.
It's no wonder some collectors just look at the labels and not the coin but once you do the work you can tell one from the other in hand and some of us will say you rec a gift if it's in the wrong holder or a net grade holder but how ever they say it.
I see it as a problem coin that some one will buy.
Hoard the keys.
Very interesting thread. What it all boils down to is - opinions about opinions. All grading, unfortunately, is an opinion, since there are no real standards. Then, the opinion is diluted even more, by departing from the technical points and adding the ever nebulous 'eye appeal'. So really, net grading is a further dilution of an opinion, and yes, likely based on rarity/value. As long as we allow these 'vapor' conditions in our hobby, we will never have true grading. A computerized system, based entirely on technical points, is the ideal method of grading. Let they sellers/buyers decide the value of 'pretty'... I have said it for years, let's get the fluff out of the grading and stick to the facts. I doubt we ever will achieve true professionalism until we do that. Cheers, RickO
A good thread, and interesting topic, thanks for starting. Also nice use of the "Socratic/ intentionally obtuse" method of inquiry, and kudos to all those with the patience to elucidate and elaborate important concepts in the evaluation of the relative Quality of rare coins.
My comments will not apply to coins readily available and practically affordable in gem, problem-free condition, as i agree with most here, to avoid any sort of problem pieces. Why compromise in such instances? Just get a very nice, beautiful, gorgeous example of that common coin with whatever grading and sticker bells and whistles and flashing lights you prefer, and proudly show it off. Easy-peasy!
But what if I'm not rich, but would still like to own and study, and enjoy the experience of having in my possession, a coin that is rare in Any condition, and is prohibitively expensive when PCGS slabbed problem-free, even in very low grade like Fair or AG, with almost all details missing? Is there any joy in buying, for example a 1796 dime with the reverse almost smooth, even if the holder has a green bean? As a type coin, I want to be able to see that eagle!
So, a collector like me considers a coin in a "genuine" holder, with enough detail remaining to enjoy looking at, and enough damage to make it affordable.
HOW affordable is where the Net grading comes in, and as others have said, individual preferences differ. I do like and use the "would you rather have" method. To me, a fair "Net Grade", and therefore Price (which is the important concern here, as I'm actually considering buying it, and thus am not one of those who Avoid at any price, which means going without such a coin entirely) ... is the price at which I'd prefer this problem coin, -Overall- to a coin without the problem(s) but with SIGNIFICANTLY more wear.
So, my 1796 dime for example, is PCGS genuine (98).
I consider this coin to have Good+ details, minor damage, decent eye appeal for the type, net AG.
Those who don't, can't, or simply won't "understand" net grading (pricing), simply will not own such a coin, nor will those who DO understand net grading just fine, but do not agree with the assessment. That's what makes a market, and allows for every coin to have liquidity (or not) at certain and various price points.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Another aspect of this topic that has been discussed is "quiet" Net Grading by the reputable TPGs, when the Problem, although it exists, does not, in their opinion, "cross the line" and prohibit a numerical grade, but does involve lowering it to reflect the presence of the minor problem(s), and therefore the Quality (value) of the piece.
Here, as an example, is a scarce coin, an 1825 B-1 quarter, in a PCGS -graded holder. What's the numerical grade?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
To the OP, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of the book 'Grading Guide for Early American Copper Coins'. It's essentially an entire book dedicated to answering your question. Here's an e-sylum review.
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n19a07.html
To just add a point, with EAC there have been arguments on how to net grade particular coins for 30+ years and the arguments only get resolved when one of the participants dies. So we won't resolve it here, we can just continue the argument.
@msch1man said: "To the OP, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of the book 'Grading Guide for Early American Copper Coins'. It's essentially an entire book dedicated to answering your question."
Thanks! Have it, reading it. That's what "sparked" the discussion.
Look, I'm two steps above a "nobody." Nevertheless, I have "problems" with some of the things in the book. It is partly my fault as I was too busy to follow through on some things I should have done.
I did a "guess the grade" a couple of years ago, here was the tally:
XF45..1
XF40..0
VF35..2
VF30..11
VF25..18
VF20..14
F15...9
F12...2
and the grade is..
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Net grading is like net loss, on my books. it means my schlock sells for less.
I cannot magnify your slab but that coin is no longer a Fine-12! In my lifetime, that coin was 100% correctly graded as it sits. I've got about two dozen slabs from the two top services that were bought in the 1980's. They are so under graded today that I use them to prove that standards have ...choke...evolved.
That’s a pretty recent slab...... not a coin graded long ago.
Yes BryceM, that's correct, a fairly recent PCGS slab and an example of Net Grading in action. The coin has VF details, and shows the die features that make the marriage distinctive, however there is some minor pitting that could be either slight environmental damage, or small planchet flaws, or a combination, that warrant a reduction in grade, but, in the opinion of the graders there, at the time, did not reach the level of severity of a "genuine/details" holder. At first glance, most folks, including myself, think, "wow, nice coin for a Fine!" and then on closer inspection, think, "Ah, ok, I see why the downgrade, still, would rather have this coin than an ordinary Fine12, and certainly better than a VG10, so OK, I get it!"
Here's another PCGS F12:
The mark in the obverse field can be seen as the reason it's not in a F15 or maybe even VF20 holder..
Even so, IMO, nice coin for a Fine!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Another example illustrating this concept for the weekend, Here is a half dime that I bought many years ago, in an old small ANACS "Details/Net Grade" holder.
Here's a discussion at the time, about the Net Grading:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/406962/grade-the-1797-half-dime-13-stars-anacs-grade-revealed
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: "Another example illustrating this concept for the weekend, Here is a half dime that I bought many years ago, in an old small ANACS "Details/Net Grade" holder."
Question: What grade was on the ANACS "net" label for this coin? I read the thread you provided and I was astonished at the high grading opinions. IMHO, that coin is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a VF! On a "true" VF - without all the commercial malarkey, gradeflation, rarity-bump, and newly-educated, brain-washed into the modern system guys...a VF coin should be sharp with wear on the highest surfaces. The coin you have shown has no high surfaces remaining at all. I should hope ANACS graded it Fine "holed" which is not a net grade. If they put it in a VG-10 holder due to the hole, that would make the case that net grading took place. Shame on the TPGS that assigned a VF-35 details grade but that would indicate an example of net graded-up or gradflation.
Thanks for this @WEP and thank you EAC for providing the rope to tie my "folly" comment up to a tall tree and prepare for a hanging.
My comments are in bold between the lines. I do this only to be easily seen. Buckle up:
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.
OK, EAC has established its own grading system.
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.
That's the first BIG problem with EAC grading!
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!
Thank Goodness. They got one correct! The coin IS an AU. So the EAC grades some AU coins AU and other AU coins XF. I've called this approach a "folly." Does anyone besides me think there is something "off" with this approach?
The basic process of EAC-grading starts with the ANA Grading Guide.
All I hear is that no one uses the ANA grading guide. I guess EAC likes it. While the standards in older editions were not up to date to the market the latest edition is pretty good. I find Grading Coins by Photographs and the PCGS online guide to be better but let's stick with the ANA book here.
If you don't have one, (I have one or two copies of every edition) 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!
That's for sure!
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.
I don't recall seeing a description of 25 or 35 anywhere. Hopefully, it will be in the EAC Grading Guide I'm reading. I'll look ahead tonight when I get home tonight.
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.
Ah, what? EAC uses a grading system while admitting right off that THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH EAC GRADING! That rope around this "pig-of-a-system" is getting tighter. They are making my case. Now, I see I have been wrong all these years. Previously, I thought "net" grading was stupid. Now, I see the light! The entire EAC grading system in addition to net grading is the "folly" I've always said it was! I cannot wait to read how this all works.
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!
LOL. And this is a standardized system for grading copper? Wait, EAC did not say they have ANY STANDARDS yet. What is expressed above as "different for everybody" sounds like the way all of us think about grading opinions.
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).
Many of us don't like coins with any problems. Unfortunately, I guess old copper coins rarely come without them.
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.
Finally, I'm in total agreement with this. Put this into "BEST ANSWER" column!
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.
"I would rather" not need to post my opinions to this so I'll pass on commenting on the above because in all honesty, I don't understand it with a single reading and I still have a long way to go here. It sounds like I can grade a coin by how I should rather have it grade. Perhaps I shall return to it when I proof read my comments at the end of this post.
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.
Actually, I do see the wacky nature of this non-grading "grading system." You see, I've learned from the numismatist who developed the original, true "Technical" Grading System in 1973 used to identify coins for the internal records of the ANA's Certification Service that there are only three things necessary to have an "ideal" grading system.
1. The system should be simple.
2. The system should be precise.
3. The system should never change.
NONE OF THESE ARE PRESENT IN EITHER NET GRADING OR EAC GRADING
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.
Holy cow! I AGREE 100%. All of these can affect a coin's value but none of these things affect that "ideal grading system." That's because DETERMINING THE CONDITION OF PRESERVATION OF A COIN - the original purpose for developing the true technical grading system as used in Washington, DC - HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP TO A COIN's VALUE!!! Sometimes the short answer is better than "wiggling-around" with a long answer while trying to make something so obviously STUPID sound very erudite.
The true Technical grading I was taught is very easy. Grade the coin's actual condition while removing all the variables such as toning, value, strike. Once the condition is determined, add the strike, eye-appeal, color but don't change the grade. EAC is trying to grade a coin using every possible variable they can think of and with copper COLOR makes it even more difficult.
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.
THANK you EAC. This "condition" thing can have two meanings. It is like the words "Uncirculated/Mint State." IMO, the condition of a coin refers to its grade. The EAC has limited it to the coin's surface and eye-appeal.
Comments are solicited.
PS I thought grading was done to put a value on a coin. While I can see that a TPGS might, I cannot see how the EAC does?
That 1797 half dime with 13 stars was in an old, small white ANACS slab from when they used to Net grade problem coins. They called it Fine Details, Holed Net Fair-2. And I paid the equivalent of Fair price guide.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Not that it matters but I agree with the grade of Fine "holed." You agreed with the price of a Fair whatever that was and the world-goes-around. I guess if it were in a holder graded Fine "holed" w/o a net grade of Fair, you would have still determined the price.
IMO, a TPGS should grade coins and let the buyer and seller determine the price. No net grading crap. I'll bet a "GT NET G" poll on a coin would show how stupid "net" grading is. My net grade for that coin may have been G-6, VG-8, or even VG-10. Who knows, but not Fair - anything.
IMHO, ANACS graders are not qualified to place a retail value on a coin - except perhaps for a Morgan dollar.
Heck, even the auction houses cannot get it right much of the time!
OP , net grading is what a dealer does when you try to sell him a coin. He looks at the slab sees that it says MS65 and offers you grey sheet for an MS 63. If its raw its worse , then you will find the Gem he sold you , even when you point out that the word GEM is clearly in his handwriting is now an EF
Insider2, you asked what Net Grading is, how it works, why it is used, and invited us to provide examples of how and why we've seen and understood it to be used, and used it our selves, which many of us have done.
Many of the responses have been well thought out, and IMO highly logical, reasonable, and practical. Other responses have been expressions (with varying levels of success) of wistful and/or cynical humor.
Your opinion of how the Net Grading of coins SHOULD work (or variously, how it should NOT work, or that you think it shouldn't be done at all) is noted.
For the record, in my examples, none of the TPGs have set the price of the transactions, that was indeed between me and the seller (and, of course, the other bidders). The TPGs have simply offered their opinions of the authenticity and grade ( Overall Quality) of the item, in various formats.
In fact, when you said, "My net grade for that coin may have been G-6, VG-8, or even VG-10. Who knows, but not Fair - anything." you have done exactly the same thing: offered your composite opinion of the piece, for which I thank you.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
One more example, in this case, the coin was offered simply with a pass-or-play price (which was equivalent to a "problem-free" Fine-12 or so) but with no other discussion with the seller of any "Net Grade" or anything else.
I took a look at the slab:
Saw it in hand:
and took a glass to some of the detail
and thought to myself that, although lightly cleaned, the coin remains attractive (even if a little bright) and my opinion of a fair Net Grade to myself, and (hopefully) to the coin market in general, as it actually exists is probably higher than Fine-12, as I'm not seeing many hairlines at all, much less 40+ points worth of them. So I bought it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Then perhaps you agree that net grading sucks, as even net grading is an opinion that has NO Precision. I'll bet if given a Large cent in hand to grade the majority of TPGS grades and knowledgeable folks (forgetting about value/rarity, and specific damage - in your case a hole) would get much closer to the coin's actual grade than the best group of EAC experts with their convoluted this-an-that approach addressing all the variables that come into EAC grading as posted above.
@Baley
Here is all I will say and this is with all due respect to you as anyone who can afford a coin like this is doing something right. Although I cannot blow the image up to check for major problems IMO ANYONE who does not recognize this coin is About Uncirculated is both BLIND and UNINFORMED. I suggest you make that dealer your only source for coins if he put a price of Fine-12 on it and it is not plugged or repaired - just cleaned.
Yesterday, I saw a presentation on grading Mint State Copper and one on Copper Coin Preservation by the EAC President on another Internet forum. Before commenting further, I wish to stress again that:
While I can discuss grading (as we all do) I cannot force my opinion on any person or organization.
While I can disagree with the way a person or organization grades (often in a snarky manner - sorry, it's in
nature) I do respect them as numismatists.
my
While I am still reading the EAC grading guide for copper, I wish to continue to point out what I consider to be the "folly" of "net" grading and EAC Mint State grading. First, I learned that EAC grading is based on the grading standards of the 1950's and 60's. YES! I wish we all could go back to the days of strict conservative grading when a coin in Mint State had no trace of wear. I learned that EAC rarely uses any of the lower grades besides 60 or 63 and I knew a coins color was extremely important to copper collectors. The plates in the book will give you a good idea of the natural colors found on old copper.
The video was going along good until this: EAC does not tolerate marks on coins considered to be Mint State. Therefore, a marked up, lustrous Mint State coin is Net graded down to AU! WHAT folly! THE GRADES OF MS-61 or MS-62 WERE ADDED TO THE GRADING SYSTEM USED BY THE REST OF US TO DESCRIBE THOSE COINS!
Seems to me that some savvy folks can buy a Large cent from an EAC dealer and get an upgrade. Oh wait, those guys are not stupid. I'll bet they grade their Large cent AU and price it as an MS-63!
I wish there were a way to make some sense of this and combine TPG and EAC grading into one simple to understand and apply system.
What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?
IMO ANYONE who does not recognize this coin is About Uncirculated is both BLIND and UNINFORMED.
Well, probably almost all would agree that the strike is pretty nice (as it usually is for this BD-1 variety; it also is sometimes seen semi prooflike ), the DETAILS are AU or better, and the surfaces still glossy rather than lusterous. It does have a mark on the cheek under the eye that receives specific mention, as well as a couple of ticks in the fields. And, it has also been gently "shined up" in the past by proud owners, and possibly dipped, too, more recently. These factors get netted into the overall assessment of the quality.
Calling it AU would not be accurate without additional Qualifiers that result in a Net grade, which can very well be a combination of simply additional words, which is fine and dandy when it's a hypothetical and philosophical exercise among disinterested parties chatting for fun.
Where it begins to Matter is when a transaction is being seriously contemplated, because all interested parties must find an agreeable dollar value corresponding to a numerical value along a Numberline from 1 to 70, versus what other coins of similar Overall Quality have sold for in the recent past.
To try to "standardize" HOW MUCH all of the different combinations of imperfection besides perfect even wear (classical Technical Grade) Matter to different individuals, is what would be "folly".
It really depends on how big and bad looking the hole, bend, scratch, rim dent, cleaning, etc. etc. ARE. And, again, very few collectors bother with "problem" modern coins unless very rare and in-demand varieties, and always, they are heavily discounted. And again, the wealthy don't have to worry about it for the rare, expensive early coins, they just get one of the best ones and pay what it costs.
Everyone else who WILL consider buying and selling Net Graded coins is different in how much they will tolerate, how much they "cost" in terms of grading points, and thus how to Rate or Score certain "problems" that most early coins have.
That's why PCGS and NGC don't do it, and that's why ANACS stopped. (Assigning a Net number by deducting from the Detail grade for problems beyond normal and typical circulation wear and damage) because opinions vary.
The whole point of Grading it, by any method, is to estimate the state of preservation, I think, obviously, that it's worth more than a Fine and less than an AU, but where, exactly, such a piece falls on the value numberline, is the interesting question, and one that will necessarily lack Precision, as it has to be case-by-case.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@MikeInFL said: "What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?"
Please do some thinking and read my posts again. Nevermind, as long as this kind of thinking continues...
Mike, let me ask how you would handle the following situation as you seem to be a very savvy numismatist from what I have read in many of your posts.
You are the professional TPGS instructor of the Basic Grading class at the ANA Summer Seminar. Now, please explain to me that a Large cent is XF-45 when in fact the coin looks like a "gem" uncirculated MS-65 to my young YN eyes.
That, in a nutshell, is why the EAC grading system belongs in the hands of the tiny number of copper experts, renown professional numismatists, and professional copper dealers. I'm just little O'l me who will never have the knowledge to publish excellently researched/needed books as Grelman, Noyes, and others have done. I use their books on a daily basis - honest. However, remember I posted that I had to drop out of EAC as I was not intelligent enough to absorb their newsletter!!
So, you are the teacher now. Please explain what you would tell the YN who is very intelligent and who brought three grading books to class and has matched the coin to the image/description of an AU-58 coin. Why is the coin only an XF? Why does a coin club condemn the way all the major TPGS's grade? What good are the grading guides when a group of folks has chosen not to follow them and make up their own "wacky" system where a coin is not Mint State if it has some marks!
I sure hope you have the time and take the time to answer these questions. Any EAC grading instructors on this thread? What happened to WDP?
ZZZZZzzzzzz...."crickets."
I think most of us have given up on the "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to?", rants.
Very interesting discussion, thank you. I have a few early coppers graded by Bob Grellman and a few more that I've either bought from Tom Reynolds or had him grade for me at shows. I am not trying to say that I understand more than a few percent of how they come to their conclusions, however when given the opportunity at my local show and having Mr. Reynold's inventory to use as examples I ask him questions as to why certain examples are graded a particular way, and the wealth of knowledge at hand and the answers I receive are elucidating, to say the least. Like in real estate where the mantra is location, location, location...I want to think that in the copper arena, it's surface, surface, surface.
LOL. I asked a lot of simple questions in this discussion. Something does not make sense to me about EAC grading or net grading. I stated reasons and backed my disagreement with examples to possibly be debunked. Apparently, now I'm the bad guy for pointing out obvious flaws. NEWS FLASH, I didn't join this forum or any other to make long-lasting friendships. If I posted the way I wish to
I would have been quickly banned.
Where I come from, 2+2 does not equal 3 or 5! I've been a student of coin grading for almost fifty-five years. There have been changes. I've trained myself to find defects. That includes coins and opinions. I want answers so I can become more informed.
So far, aside from Baley, I mostly get this type of nonsense:
@TommyType said: "I think most of us have given up on the "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to?", rants."
What I think is most of you do not have the ability to defend the stupid, illogical system of grading I address in this discussion. I already said it cannot be changed, the Koolade is too sweet.
I'm hoping that more folks who know what they are talking about answer all my questions for the benefit of all of us here - not just me. Grading is a subjective thing so if you are one of the "experts" who wish to call an AU coin XF - PLEASE KEEP THAT Ah...nonsense TO YOURSELF or explain how that makes any sense to a beginning collector!!
BTW, I'm still waiting to find out who invented net grading and when. As I wrote, I couldn't find it mentioned in Sheldon's book that was written before some of you "experts" were born.
Edit: Oops, how did I leave Mr. Reynolds out of my post above. He is a scholar and a gentleman who has helped me on several occasions as has Mr. Grellman.
Well, to be honest, you left out the "smiley". Beyond that, yeah, it was probably nonsense.
But you have gone from "Please teach me" to "I demand you defend something I've already called stupid and illogical". I don't think you should be surprised if there isn't a line forming..... (I don't use Net Grading either, so I'm not in line.....)
@TommyType said: "...you have gone from "**Please teach me" to "I demand you defend something I've already called stupid and illogical". I don't think you should be surprised if there isn't a line forming..... (I don't use Net Grading either, so I'm not in line.....)
Thanks for adding to the discussion again. Here is your
I looked for the "Please teach me" in my post but could not find it; however, that is exactly what one intention was for this discussion. Teach all of us. Some members posted. Great!
The fact that I did not agree with their posts, refuted their examples, and asked more (UNANSWERED) questions led to one member writing that this was an informative discussion. I had hoped to read more discussion and receive answers to my questions. IMHO, there is no line forming because EAC and net grading CANNOT be logically defended.
I don't use EAC grading methods and very rarely net grade. I have learned that copper "experts" think our host and the other three TPGS cannot grade copper correctly. To my mind, that's like the "misinformed," calling the "knowledgeable" folks ignorant because they don't agree with a complicated, illogical, fantasy grading system (not precise) - developed by what numismatist and when?
I'll try to make sense of this to the coin club but I don't see how yet.
I think I shall post some "Guess the Net Grade discussions." I may learn some more.
All grades below 70 are Net grades: the final grade opinion is Net of any and all reasons the coin is not perfect, including wear.
If you object to the term Net, propose another word, Overall, Composite, Total, the concept remains the same, appraise the quality of the coin.
It is the distinction of a "Line" of acceptable damage versus not-acceptable that is confusing, because opinions differ on how much various defects Matter.
Most of us are just about done tilting at this windmill, apparently.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: "All grades below 70 are Net grades: the final grade opinion is Net of any and all reasons the coin is not perfect, including wear."
You are referring to EAC grading correct? Otherwise...I disagree. For example the grade of VF has a specific (classroom) definition backed up by images of the standard VF grade on line and in published grading guides. There is nothing "net" about that.
@Baley continued: "If you object to the term Net, propose another word, Overall, Composite, Total, the concept remains the same, appraise the quality of the coin."
If you are NOT referring to "Net" grading, I cannot do it with one word. It takes something like: additional loss of detail from wear." There is no net grading in the normal, accepted grading system used by the TPGS's and most of us.
@Baley said: "It is the distinction of a "Line" of acceptable damage versus not-acceptable that is confusing, because opinions differ on how much various defects Matter."
We agree 100% on this for both the normal grading system and the EAC system that uses "net" grading.
Finally @Baley ends with this: "Most of us are just about done tilting at this windmill, apparently."
Thanks for posting and providing images. You my be correct about other CU members. That's a shame. You see, if a windmill is getting old and derelict, or if it is not functioning in a manner it was designed for, IMO it needs to be torn down and burned so that it can be replaced with a better windmill.
PS Any idea who came up with "Net" grading and when?
It was the first caveman, about 50,000 years ago, who noticed that, in his opinion, This stone is a little bit better than That stone. And then your ancestor disagreed with his thought process.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I disagree. It had to be sometime after 1950 and before 1978. My guess is that Jack Robinson played all or a large part in developing the EAC net grading system. Correct? Not correct? Any others?
Please don't infer I'm not reading your posts or thinking. I don't appreciate it and it is not conductive to a productive conversation. Thank you.
I would have to see the coin in question to be able to answer that question in any way except hypothetically.
But in short, I would tell them the same thing I first posted in this thread -- all the TPGs net grade. If the coin looks like a 65 but a TPG graded it 45, there's some problem (for instance an old cleaning) that I'm not seeing. If, on the other hand a TPG grades it 65 and the EAC 45, it's simply a difference in the way each organization grades.
Which, was of course, the point of my valuation question. In the end (i.e. price) they converge.
The EAC method is no harder to discern than the TPG method. If anything, EAC is a bit more transparent in their grading methods.
But in the end they are both subjective.
I would have a detailed discussion about the coin in question. Like above, I would focus on whatever might be missed in the evaluation of the coin that led to the grading discrepancy.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you are saying here -- I do not recall reading of your posts on dropping out of the EAC -- but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state. Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, so perhaps that's what you're referring to here.
That said, I think it comes down to how the EAC and TPGs define "mint state" -- TPGs are more focused on luster impairment and the EAC takes into account other issues (like hits) that can net a grade a coin that has never circulated well below mint state.
Take care....Mike
Thanks for taking the time to reply!!! I'll comment on your full post later but for now...this contradiction:
Mike, you posted "...but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state."
I watched the president of the EAC state this in a video about grading MS Large cents!!
Then you added this which I take as a contradiction: "Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, ...
That is certainly one of the things that is not logical. IMO, numismatists should not have five different grading systems. I'm using "five" to drive my point home because we all should know there are not that many - maybe only three...LOL.
Best to you also and appreciate your spunk and efforts to inform/educate us!!
@insider2,
I don't see those as contradictory at all. They are both (at least in attempt if not effect) trying to say that an otherwise mint state coin with hits can grade net out to sub-MS 60 by EAC grading.
And I have not seen the video of the EAC president, so it's tough for me to know the context of the quote you shared, but I suspect what he was saying is that if a coin has some hits an otherwise mint state coin can be netted to below MS 60 because of them -- which is in line with my comments on the topic.
And your observation about five different grading systems is precisely why I asked the (rhetorical) question I did in my second response to this thread: What's the difference between a large cent graded EAC 45 and a PCGS 58 if they are both priced at $1000?"
The point being this: Let's presume for a moment that you only know how to grade to PCGS standards. You walk up to CVM's table and he has a nice large cent in EAC 45 that's marked $1000. Instead of trying to agree or disagree with the EAC grade, which you are unsure of your ability to do, and cross-reference for the value in the EAC price guides, why not simply take the $1000 and use that to get the approximate PCGS price (and therefore grade) and pass or play on that information? In the example I chose, it would be an XF45 which is also valued at $1000. That way you can validate what you're seeing without the requisite EAC grading skills.
Because what I think you will find is that regardless if the coin is in a PCGS slab or an EAC cotton bag and envelope, they end up producing coins that are very consistent in price (or rank)....which is the point to begin with.
Bottom line: Nobody grades coins for the sake of grading them. Grades are a means to an end -- pricing (or ranking) them. And that end can be reached a number of ways and it doesn't always require an in-depth knowledge of the possible (or even used) grading standards. More to the point of this response: The price can be the means to translate between these standards.
Take care....Mike
Well said.
Hey Mike, I found the video by the EAC president I quoted above. CU members may wish to view it as I don't have time yet to comment on your last two posts.
You Tube: Coin Week IQ, EAC Grading Demystified MS-60 - MS-70 4K video.
Except for this: Step over to the Large cent dealer's table with Little Johnny YN. See this XF coin for a $1000? Now open your grading guide and match the picture... What? AU? I know it also matches the PCGS AU-58 and the NGC AU-58 slabs we looked at on the other table for $1000.
Little Johnny YN, that should be a good lesson for you. A coin's grade does not matter- only its price. Well, you have to guess if the price is Ok because the grade on the coin is supposed to let you know what the price is. I guess the Large cent dealer may be playing a big game. Grade low and price high. That way, the customer will think he put one over on the dealer and got a really good deal.
I'm continuing my study of net grading and how undefined and impractical (I use the word "Folly") it is. It seems that all but one or two of its defenders/proponents have begged out of the discussion. I did read a Letter to the Editor in Numismatic News about a challenge on this subject made to a columnist by an esteemed member of EAC. I cannot wait to read the results. Anyway, I disagree that net grading is easy to learn as this poster claims:
@MikeInFL said: "The EAC method is no harder to discern than the TPG method. If anything, EAC is a bit more transparent in their grading methods. But in the end they are both subjective."
Grading can be very subjective when we include everyone in the equation. That includes most who are totally uninformed. In my experience, many others cannot identify an original coin from one that is not. I think that if we eliminate the ignorant from the group grading would not seem as subjective. For example, I think the opinions on most coins in the grading room of our host are graded very closely - no 1-2 point swings. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
That said, let's see what an esteemed author and copper expert has to say about the grading [FOLLY - my word] done by his group: "A word about net grading - i.e., assigning a sharpness grade, say XF-40, and then reducing it because of problems. This type of grading CAUSES MANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS, because everyone interprets problems differently, and therefore subtracts more or less from the sharpness grade according to their own preferences.
@MikeInFL continued: "...but I think you are way off if you think the EAC won't grade coin with some marks mint state. Regardless, hits can certainly cause an EAC grader to grade an otherwise mint state coin as below mint state, so perhaps that's what you're referring to here. That said, I think it comes down to how the EAC and TPGs define "mint state" -- TPGs are more focused on luster impairment and the EAC takes into account other issues (like hits) that can net a grade a coin that has never circulated well below mint state.
Yes, some Mint State coins with marks are graded MS by EAC and other Mint State coins with marks are not. Some coins that never circulated can be net graded well below Mint State.
I say F O L L Y
I never said it was easy, @Insider2, I was making a statement of equivalence in difficultly between two subjective measurement methods.
I would further argue that by using your logic anything subjective is folly -- which perhaps it is.
But it's the best way we have to grade/rank/price coins, even if there are different dialects in the language used to do so and you are (apparently) unable to discern and/or acknowledge them....but for some reason would rather disparage them.
Nobody said net grading was easy -- nor should it be. It is not an exact science. Reasonable people can disagree about things, particularly grading opinions -- it's just the nature of the beast and I think we'd be better off studying its innate behavior rather than arguing about its viscous subjectivity.
Respectfully....Mike
p.s. thanks for the video. Here's a link for those so inclined: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U1qqlXS6qUI
Thanks for your reply Mike. Speaking of everything being subjective, I think many things are. I'll try to paraphrase something said in a grading seminar back in the 1980's:
"We make subjective decisions about virtually everything. When you walk into the store to buy some fruit, do you pick the ripe, firm, full colored piece or the smelly, dark, squishy one with flies buzzing around it?"
What I'm saying in this thread is a small group of collectors/dealers/specialists have broken away from a system of grading used by most. This is OK, they can do as they wish. Unfortunately, rather than come up with a simple, precise, and better grading system they jumped off the cliff of reality into the foggy valley of folly. By their own admission in published books and videos the system is complicated, and has little relationship to the grading the rest of us attempt to use. I'll bet after reaching the advanced grading class at the Summer Seminar, a YN could go home to his coin club and teach the old guys how to grade. From what I read, it should be virtually impossible for me or any non-copper expert to duplicate that feat using Net grading - EVER!
Nevertheless, I'm going to continue my study in an attempt to cut thru the fog/folly so that one day I'll be able to look at a Mint State copper in a TPGS slab and be able to explain why it is graded XF by EAC standards. It is going to be a long and hopefully not impossible task.
As soon as I find a suitable coin, I plan to post a "GUESS THE NET GRADE" discussion. That should help all of us.
I have a very nice 1830 half dollar. Fully struck and NO trace of wear. Does have a big scratch in the field.
I await your check for a mint state coin.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: "I have a very nice 1830 half dollar. Fully struck and NO trace of wear. Does have a big scratch in the field."
Welcome back. I think both you and Mike are giving me a run for the money and providing lots of thoughtful insight to others who are just "lurking" in the thread.
BTW, I don't buy coins I can't see in hand and your coin is way out of my price range.
Besides, when I needed a MS coin with a scratch for a demonstration I made one like this: Wait! WOW, I was going to put a large scratch across this coin but look what I found: Die Chips. Now, it's a "keeper." Just pretend It has a scratch.
If you have a 1830 Half with no trace of wear, I should like to see it - and I claim to know the difference between strike softness and friction wear. Several years ago I was astonished to read that a famous, high-power, female numismatist who does not post here stated something to the effect that truly Mint State Capped Bust Half dollars were extremely rare! A very knowledgeable statement that I agree with.
Additionally, it should be very educational for all of us to see it and comment. For example, how long, how wide, how deep, and where (obverse/reverse/prime focal area) is the scratch? What is your net grade for the coin - VF, XF? I should probably grade it (if it is actually MS): Uncirculated "details" scratched. You and others can place a value on it and change its ACTUAL condition of preservation to something it is not.
BTW, are Net graded coins ever sold "sight-unseen?" If that's the case, talk about all the possible big surprises in store for the buyer.
So, how about a photo and your thoughts about how the 1830 should be graded.
Ah, but it's more interesting as a thought experiment. For sake of argument, say coin is truly well struck and has no wear nor toning, nor any other marks worth singular mention, except for the definite and obvious scratch in the field.
Now, imagine further, that you have 10 such coins, all identical except for the one scratch on each one, and those are different in severity, the first a light. Thin 2 mm scratch on the reverse, then a slightly deeper and wider 3mm long scratch on the obverse under the date, and so on, with the 10th coin having a 15 mm long, very deep and ugly scratch right in front of Liberty's face.
No one is saying these coins' "actual condition of preservation" (aka "grade ") ranges from perhaps MS64 on down to perhaps AG.
We're saying that thinking about a Net grade allows one to think about and describe the condition at least somewhat analytically.
"Unc, scratched" in isolation has very little useful information content... because, Where and How bad is the Scratch (es)??
"UNC net 55" vs " UNC net 12" says much. You know about where each of the coins ranks in the above theoretical continuum.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry