@Baley said:
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.
Now you're talking! I'll give this some thought. I see a flaw right off though. There is no such EAC grade as "Unc net 12!" Am I correct?
I did find these examples of EAC grading going thru several pages of the catalog. I really don't see any glaring trend. However, I'll need to total the lots and break down the grades. I'm very surprised that it seems like there is at least 45% total agreement with both systems on the same coin. I was under the impression that the TPGS cannot grade copper correctly.
TPGS 63+/EAC 64
63/60
63/60+
62/60
64/62
55/60 net 50
64/65 net 64
50/50+ net 45
40+/45 net 40
6/12 net 6
15+/30 net 15+
10/25 net 12+
64/64 net 62+
Now, in your mind, take coin no. 5 or 6 above, the otherwise gem with the unfortunate medium thickness 10 mm long scratch on LIBERTY's cheek, the coin that practically everyone agrees is damaged and doesn't get a straight grade.
Hypothetically take that scratch, and break it up into groups of little 1-2mm marks, make 10 copies of each, and distribute them among 10 fresh gem coins, also along a distribution from obviously acceptable, randomly scattered, and mostly in the hair and feathers, through to medium "Net" coins with a few on the cheek and ib other grade sensitive places, to, on the end of the line, the marks are all in front of the face, shaped itno a distinct letter B.
Once again we have a range of Unc details coins that Net grade from possibly Ms66 or 67, on down through the 60's and 50's in composite grade, to the grafitti coin, which, depending on the attractiveness/ skill of the B ( and whether it's your initial!) might net perhaps 10 or 20 or 30, in the marketplace.
@Baley said:
Now, in your mind, take coin no. 5 or 6 above, the otherwise gem with the unfortunate medium thickness 10 mm long scratch on LIBERTY's cheek, the coin that practically everyone agrees is damaged and doesn't get a straight grade.
Hypothetically take that scratch, and break it up into groups of little 1-2mm marks, make 10 copies of each, and distribute them among 10 fresh gem coins, also along a distribution from obviously acceptable, randomly scattered, and mostly in the hair and feathers, through to medium "Net" coins with a few on the cheek and ib other grade sensitive places, to, on the end of the line, the marks are all in front of the face, shaped itno a distinct letter B.
Once again we have a range of Unc details coins that Net grade from possibly Ms66 or 67, on down through the 60's and 50's in composite grade, to the grafitti coin, which, depending on the attractiveness/ skill of the B ( and whether it's your initial!) might net perhaps 10 or 20 or 30, in the marketplace.
In all honesty, I've been told that I have a very good imagination and I enjoy playing visualization games when learning grading in seminars but I'm going to need some time to work out your post above and the one on the previous page.
Thanks for continuing to educate me. I'll work on this over the weekend!
@Insider2 said:
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!
I'm not quite sure what type of grading you think "the rest of us use" -- perhaps you might help me there -- but I will argue that regardless of the method:
1) It is subjective.
2) It is complicated.
3) It results in ranking and/or pricing of coins.
Except perhaps purely technical grading, which, as was very well pointed out with the MS but scratched example, is practically useless when it comes to grades that can be applied in the marketplace.
And if you think a YN can attend a few seminars and teach old guys grading, I'm not sure I'll every be able to convince you that in the end each of the grading methods are much more similar than they are different and one is no more or less difficult, substantively, to learn or apply than another...as they are all subjective at best and open to interpretation, disagreement, and even a few who simply throw their hands up in disgust and call it "folly".
Grading/pricing/ranking coins is not easy, and if simplicity is your goal, I'm not sure grading coins (or frankly anything subjective) is the area you should be seeking it.
Take care....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
@Insider2 said:
Now this one? And please explain the thought process as it should be a big help. Thanks.
I'd grade that coin about $300 -- well below the market value of a 1928 Peace in AU -- but would comment that the slab holds far too much value for me to even offer for this coin.
But with my last two answers, perhaps you'll note that I don't really grade coins so much as value them subjectively.
Because, for me at least, it's about the coin and the price I'm willing to buy or sell a coin at, rather than a number on a slab or an envelope.
And that's kind of the point I've been trying to make, so thanks for the opportunity to bring it home with an example.
Happy Saturday....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
@Baley said: Well said Mike. No, Insider, I do not care to net grade the scudzy peace dollars from bad scans of one side, even if i Were in the market for such a coin."
Then perhaps you should be done with this discussion as you are adding nothing. I think anyone can grade the obverse of this coin. PCGS graded it AU. I can agree with the grade. Mike said the net grade is VF because that establishes its VALUE. Note that Mike was able to put a value on the coin and grade it in spite of the label.
The problem is this: I'm in an ANA Grading seminar and this coin is on the final exam. The YN's who are taking the course would grade this coin AU-something, environmental damage. They would neither know what the wholesale or retail value of a typical AU coin was nor the value of this scudzy piece was. However, they could easily grade it. Anyone in the class that said XF or VF would be incorrect.
This subject is far from over - at least for me. My research/reading into this mess has been continuing and I'll have a lot of "net" grading practices for you and others to attempt to make seem logical.
BTW, I'm not trying to change the way a small group of Large Cent specialists "invented" to put a value on their coins. I just wish to expose the alien, breakaway, and complicated Net Grading System for what it is: "Folly." Even ANACS tried it for the commercial market. Thankfully, that was dropped into the same toilet with the "Technical" Grading System used for teaching beginners how to grade as it was not at all appropriate for the commercial market.
I've been a serious student of grading since before there was any such recognized practice of net grading and when I first read about it decades ago it made no sense at all. In the old days. a coin was assigned its "correct and obvious" grade based on the design remaining and its price was adjusted down due to any problems. There was no such thing as a "detailed" grade either **UNTIL THE INVENTION OF "TECHNICAL GRADING" in 1973! It appears it has been resurrected in part today due to the displeasure of "bodybags."
Until next time, let me leave you all with this thought: Ask anyone what the purpose of grading a coin is and most will parrot that we grade coins to establish their value. So what is the point of "net" grading when its proponents claim that it is complicated due to variables such as surface preservation in such a way that they cannot agree among themselves? Additionally, it has absolutely no relationship to any "value" (grade) assigned on the coin by a major TPGS or the rest of us?
PS Please don't claim that a team of professionals at a major TPGS cannot agree on the grade (value) of a coin for the commercial market either! There is no contest. The only way to prove it would be to take twenty (new to the market) Large cents and let 5 EAC copper dealers grade them independently and 5 graders from the same TPGS grade them independently. Then just to prove that the copper guys fudged their opinions to be more in line with the "REAL WORLD" as the other graders...I should have the coins graded by 5 more "top" EAC guys who did not know any test was being done. LOL!
Comments
And LoL, no, these are not the kinds of coins that typically trade sight unseen.
But they do trade.
And some Grade by the TPGS, as we've seen.
They're worth less, not worthless.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Now you're talking! I'll give this some thought. I see a flaw right off though. There is no such EAC grade as "Unc net 12!" Am I correct?
I did find these examples of EAC grading going thru several pages of the catalog. I really don't see any glaring trend. However, I'll need to total the lots and break down the grades. I'm very surprised that it seems like there is at least 45% total agreement with both systems on the same coin. I was under the impression that the TPGS cannot grade copper correctly.
TPGS 63+/EAC 64
63/60
63/60+
62/60
64/62
55/60 net 50
64/65 net 64
50/50+ net 45
40+/45 net 40
6/12 net 6
15+/30 net 15+
10/25 net 12+
64/64 net 62+
.
Now, in your mind, take coin no. 5 or 6 above, the otherwise gem with the unfortunate medium thickness 10 mm long scratch on LIBERTY's cheek, the coin that practically everyone agrees is damaged and doesn't get a straight grade.
Hypothetically take that scratch, and break it up into groups of little 1-2mm marks, make 10 copies of each, and distribute them among 10 fresh gem coins, also along a distribution from obviously acceptable, randomly scattered, and mostly in the hair and feathers, through to medium "Net" coins with a few on the cheek and ib other grade sensitive places, to, on the end of the line, the marks are all in front of the face, shaped itno a distinct letter B.
Once again we have a range of Unc details coins that Net grade from possibly Ms66 or 67, on down through the 60's and 50's in composite grade, to the grafitti coin, which, depending on the attractiveness/ skill of the B ( and whether it's your initial!) might net perhaps 10 or 20 or 30, in the marketplace.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
In all honesty, I've been told that I have a very good imagination and I enjoy playing visualization games when learning grading in seminars but I'm going to need some time to work out your post above and the one on the previous page.
Thanks for continuing to educate me. I'll work on this over the weekend!
@Baley
@MikeInFL
Care to net grade this coin for me?
Now this one? And please explain the thought process as it should be a big help. Thanks.
I'm not quite sure what type of grading you think "the rest of us use" -- perhaps you might help me there -- but I will argue that regardless of the method:
1) It is subjective.
2) It is complicated.
3) It results in ranking and/or pricing of coins.
Except perhaps purely technical grading, which, as was very well pointed out with the MS but scratched example, is practically useless when it comes to grades that can be applied in the marketplace.
And if you think a YN can attend a few seminars and teach old guys grading, I'm not sure I'll every be able to convince you that in the end each of the grading methods are much more similar than they are different and one is no more or less difficult, substantively, to learn or apply than another...as they are all subjective at best and open to interpretation, disagreement, and even a few who simply throw their hands up in disgust and call it "folly".
Grading/pricing/ranking coins is not easy, and if simplicity is your goal, I'm not sure grading coins (or frankly anything subjective) is the area you should be seeking it.
Take care....Mike
It is very difficult to net grade problem coins from photos, but with that disclaimer aside,....
I grade the coin $250 -- VF-ish pricing.
I'd grade that coin about $300 -- well below the market value of a 1928 Peace in AU -- but would comment that the slab holds far too much value for me to even offer for this coin.
But with my last two answers, perhaps you'll note that I don't really grade coins so much as value them subjectively.
Because, for me at least, it's about the coin and the price I'm willing to buy or sell a coin at, rather than a number on a slab or an envelope.
And that's kind of the point I've been trying to make, so thanks for the opportunity to bring it home with an example.
Happy Saturday....Mike
Well said Mike.
No, Insider, I do not care to net grade the scudzy peace dollars from bad scans of one side, even if i Were in the market for such a coin.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: Well said Mike. No, Insider, I do not care to net grade the scudzy peace dollars from bad scans of one side, even if i Were in the market for such a coin."
Then perhaps you should be done with this discussion as you are adding nothing. I think anyone can grade the obverse of this coin. PCGS graded it AU. I can agree with the grade. Mike said the net grade is VF because that establishes its VALUE. Note that Mike was able to put a value on the coin and grade it in spite of the label.
The problem is this: I'm in an ANA Grading seminar and this coin is on the final exam. The YN's who are taking the course would grade this coin AU-something, environmental damage. They would neither know what the wholesale or retail value of a typical AU coin was nor the value of this scudzy piece was. However, they could easily grade it. Anyone in the class that said XF or VF would be incorrect.
That @Baley is why net grading is dumb F O L L Y.
@MikeInFL Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'll answer your well thought out posts tomorrow. You ar making me think.
@Baley I'm re-birthing this thread for Christmas.
This subject is far from over - at least for me. My research/reading into this mess has been continuing and I'll have a lot of "net" grading practices for you and others to attempt to make seem logical.
BTW, I'm not trying to change the way a small group of Large Cent specialists "invented" to put a value on their coins. I just wish to expose the alien, breakaway, and complicated Net Grading System for what it is: "Folly." Even ANACS tried it for the commercial market. Thankfully, that was dropped into the same toilet with the "Technical" Grading System used for teaching beginners how to grade as it was not at all appropriate for the commercial market.
I've been a serious student of grading since before there was any such recognized practice of net grading and when I first read about it decades ago it made no sense at all. In the old days. a coin was assigned its "correct and obvious" grade based on the design remaining and its price was adjusted down due to any problems. There was no such thing as a "detailed" grade either **UNTIL THE INVENTION OF "TECHNICAL GRADING" in 1973! It appears it has been resurrected in part today due to the displeasure of "bodybags."
Until next time, let me leave you all with this thought: Ask anyone what the purpose of grading a coin is and most will parrot that we grade coins to establish their value. So what is the point of "net" grading when its proponents claim that it is complicated due to variables such as surface preservation in such a way that they cannot agree among themselves? Additionally, it has absolutely no relationship to any "value" (grade) assigned on the coin by a major TPGS or the rest of us?
PS Please don't claim that a team of professionals at a major TPGS cannot agree on the grade (value) of a coin for the commercial market either! There is no contest. The only way to prove it would be to take twenty (new to the market) Large cents and let 5 EAC copper dealers grade them independently and 5 graders from the same TPGS grade them independently. Then just to prove that the copper guys fudged their opinions to be more in line with the "REAL WORLD" as the other graders...I should have the coins graded by 5 more "top" EAC guys who did not know any test was being done. LOL!
BUMP
My what weighty questions you ask, Insider2.
Keep asking. They stimulate the little gray cells.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I'd call it maybe a $100 coin, I would rather have a "normal" circulated VF/XF than that weird looking coin.