Get ready for the grading fireworks!
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
A member on another forum wrote that he "would prefer that the TPGS's would use net grading on early copper coins." This after a slab with a slightly corroded AU-58 1/2 cent was straight graded as an XF-45.
This was my reply to his post:
Thankfully, what you prefer will never happen.
NET grading is the most stupid, wacky, confusing, bunch of rot that was ever invented (by whom the EAC?) to try to put a value on a coin.
This is not an opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of the essence of grading a coin that's evolved into our present grading system (possibly including Dr. Sheldon himself) can come up with so many reason's to get rid of the Net Grading FOLLY that there is no need for me to post even one stupid example. The OP's coin was enough.
What do you think?
PS Please don't post comments about me or my abrasive personality in this thread - send me a PM with that nonsense. Thanks.
Comments
Rattlers are full of net graded coins. The more cracked, the more the percentage increases.
I agree. That's why when ANACS started grading coins I made the decision that we would use the correct technical grade AND verbally describe any significant problems. That way somebody seeing our certificate would know what they were getting.
When slabs replaced certificates they lost the ability to describe coins beyond an extremely limited number of characters. It was the hobby's loss.
TD
I worked professionally in the exact same building at Rockland State Psychiatric as Dr. Sheldon.
You would not. 
He and I had keys to that same locked ward.
He would have found little pleasure in discussing grading with you.
And you little in discussing electro-convulsive shock with him.
net grading-alive and well
Nice story, did you discuss net grading? I have not read the intro to Penny Whimsy in over a decade. I do not recall anything about net grading in his book. I have bought a copy of the "New" EAC Grading Guide but have only skimmed it several months ago as I believe net grading sucks! However, from what I saw,the book looks to be great and I do recommend it highly.
I don't really care what others think of my coin collection.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Dr. Sheldon's skimming was done in the basement of the ANS.
I must read the new EAC guide to see how they would assess the recent 1807/6 1C PCGS MS66RD,CAC for carbon, and will likely have to re-interpret my view of the Missouri Cabinet 1831/36 H1c PCGS PR66RB,CAC called Proof 65.
Those likely adding little to this discussion, but your thoughts on the powers of SEM-quality magnification to visually evaluate micro-corrosion, as well as laser-based measurement techniques on refraction values would clarify a great deal for Mark, I and the 11 other people not on CAC threads today
Grading without net grading is like grading without a net.
All generalizations are bad.
Some generalizations contain truths.
Aristotleans and Booleans retch at Forum semi-hemi-demi-quasi-logic.
In late-breaking news from another post by the OP: People are putting stuff on coins.
Are you having a private conversation? Who wrote about micro-corrosion or magnification? How do you or Dr. Sheldon feel about Net grading?
@derryb said: "I don't really care what others think of my coin collection."
LOL, What collection? There must be some subliminal stuff coming through the screens from out host.
Ask a simple question and off we go...Soon the trolls will chime in with more off-subject wacky posts.
Thanks Guys, have fun.
Guess you don't know that ol' codger very well.
heh
I don't really care about net grading....or other things. Really, my collection stands for what it is, at least in my mind.
I don't collect for points, I don't collect for accolades, although it is nice every now and then to show a coin for educational purposes or for comments.
To me it's all educational, giving my opinion about stuff, learning as I go, and using the "knowledge is power" mantra again and again.
Suits me just fine.....................
Just me.
Pete
There is a deep fallacy at the core of "net grading", and serious financial risk.
This is based on many reports that some of the pictures you see on Ebay are not accurate.
@stman said: "Guess you don't know that ol' codger very well.
heh"
Actually I have known the old codger
for decades - enough to stop and have a conversation when we see each other at a show. However, he has always seemed so normal. LOL.
Hopefully, "codger" refers to @WhimsyDoc and is most cruelly and intentionally misapplied.
@stman would likely refer to me, with all due and attendant whimsical deference, as "that ol' coot".
"Normal" is not a word to be tossed about loosely. Stick to grading coins
Ok, now I am not sure what I mean. But you do. Heh
I believe that the good Colonel was in some sense insulted by being referred to as "normal". I have found him to be one of the most entertainingly "abnormal" people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting.
For what it is worth, all EAC grading from Dr. Sheldon to present day is really net grading as it is technical grading that is then netted downward for any defects.
~~~~
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
Oh, glad I did not call him normal. Not something I would do.
Yes, let the good col mutter about. He's not hurting anyone. When he decides to be coherent to the masses, it is usually worth listening to.
Didn't net grading already happen for the slab you mention above?
TPGs routinely net grade coins and it is part of stated PCGS policy for certain rare coins.
Net grading is necessary for early copper because a very large number of the surviving pieces have issues. If all of those pieces became "no grades" there would be a whole less pieces left to buy. The trouble is there is not enough room on slab labels to describe the problems properly. In addition slab grades tend to push for very brief grading descriptions that lend themselves to blind bids. Early copper coins often do not lend themselves to that scenario.
This!
Mostly.....
However, to be fair.....
But... But... But...
To put it bluntly: I think you have a naive view of TPG grading.
The TPGs already do net grading. The just have a lower threshold for problems they will put in graded holders, and they don't follow directly EAC standards. Fundamentally, they both -- EAC and TPG grading -- function the same way and they are similar means to the same end: They price and/or rank coins.
That said, I kind of agree with the poster you quoted. Bill Jones kind of hit on why -- there's a signficant market for "problem" copper and there's a much smaller number of TPG-passable coins. Along that same line, and as others have noted, I, too, liked the way ANACS did it -- just details grading it and stated the problem like they did for this coin:
But really, for me at least, it's about the coin and not the holder -- slabbed coins, net graded or not, are only a means to an end. Just show me the coin and tell me the price.
Enjoy your weekend....Mike
I'll stir the pot. Net grading is self preservation amongst an elite clique. Happy now ?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
It's a conundrum wrapped in an enigma.
The Colonel can speak in Numismatic tongues. I'm kind of into it
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He is quite entertaining!
TPG grading is a basal standard. The grade is assigned based upon the very technical condition of the coin. Some coins with flaws that might make the coin details grade, are instead net graded (down) based upon the defect. Problem is that coins with attributes, such as exceptional toning, are not net graded higher. Net grading is nothing more than an opinion that adjusts another opinion.
I think that our TPG grading system establishes a reltivistic grade for 80% of the coins that are graded. And the other 20% do not seem to fit the grading standard. And that 20% +/- may be details graded coins that do not receive a numerical grade, or opinion of their quality, without qualification of their specific defect.
TPG's grade perfect coins perfectly, but they do not want to grade imperfect coins for what they are. And many imperfect coins are net graded because the market finds them to be acceptable. I think that net grading does serve the interest of the market, but if net graded, the specific defect should be noted, if not on the holder, but through the cert verification process.
OINK
A little humor (or at least I thought it was funny). A dealer said to me, "If 8 EAC guys got together and started grading an xf large cent, by the time it got to the 8th guy, it would be a fair!"
Louis Armstrong
When it comes to net grading, some coins are more equal than others.
I'm certainly glad that's settled
All grades are net grades, you are arguing criteria or disqualifiers. Your opinion is but one in a sea of the them. You grade coins as you wish as will PCGS. That is the reality
If one was to look at the basic intent of grading which is to quantify value then there isn't a conflict there either. The AU58 is worth EF money according to PCGS which aligns with the intent of grading. Even with all of that the only two opinions that matter on grades in that context is the buyer and seller. The seller grades it with a price and the buyer agrees and buys it or they don't.
This isn't that hard
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
If it weren't for these boards, the Colonel @ColonelJessup would have starting crocheting on the couch watching Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune long ago. Yet another reason why I love these boards.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Instead, I log on crochety.
@Zoins said: "TPGs routinely net grade coins and it is part of stated PCGS policy for certain rare coins."
Thanks, I was ignorant of that fact. If you will, as time allows, would you tell me where this PCGS policy is stated and give me some examples of the "CERTAIN" coins you mention? Are they the early Large cents?
@BillJones said: "Net grading is necessary for early copper because a very large number of the surviving pieces have issues. If all of those pieces became "no grades" there would be a whole less pieces left to buy. The trouble is there is not enough room on slab labels to describe the problems properly. In addition, slab grades tend to push for very brief grading descriptions that lend themselves to blind bids. Early copper coins often do not lend themselves to that scenario."
Thanks, this makes sense except for the part about fewer coins to buy. The coins would still be available, just not properly graded due to the straight "net" grades assigned or "detailed." This was a point I was making. A coin is what it is, not what we say it is. An AU coin with a scratch is not an XF! The MAJOR PROBLEM with modern coin grading occurred when a coin's value (Commercial Grading and not the Sheldon Scale) was introduced into the equation!
@BigMoose said: "For what it is worth, all__ EAC grading from Dr. Sheldon to present day is really net grading as it is technical grading that is then netted downward for any defects."
This statement demonstrates that you have been misinformed as to the true nature and application of "Technical Grading" as it was devised. The ANA bastardized true "Technical Grading" at ANACS in Colorado as they did not have a clue! There is NO "net grading done when assigning a "technical grade." If you do that., call it the "BigMoose" Grading System.
@Crypto said: "All grades are net grades, you are arguing criteria or disqualifiers. Your opinion is but one in a sea of the them. You grade coins as you wish as will PCGS. That is the reality."
Disagree! Apparently, you have confused grading and net grading as "ALL GRADGES ARE NOT NET GRADES."
@Crypto continued: "If one was to look at the basic intent of grading which is to quantify value then there isn't a conflict there either. The AU58 is worth EF money according to PCGS which aligns with the intent of grading. Even with all of that the only two opinions that matter on grades in that context is the buyer and seller. The seller grades it with a price and the buyer agrees and buys it or they don't. This isn't that hard."
Well said. It is the buyer and seller that determine the price. I've hardly ever heard two knowledgeable and successful dealers or collectors mention a coin's grade during a transaction.
We'll disagree with the "intent" of grading. However, what you posted is true for Commercial (value) grading.
All one need do is put an asterisk after the grade like say MS61*. This would signal one to go to the PCGS cert number lookup utility where the rest of the relevant information could be found.
@MikeInFL said: "To put it bluntly: I think you have a naive view of TPG grading."
Perhaps.
"The TPGs already do net grading. The just have a lower threshold for problems they will put in graded holders, and they don't follow directly EAC standards. Fundamentally, they both -- EAC and TPG grading -- function the same way and they are similar means to the same end: They price and/or rank coins.
So all the complaints I hear/read from EAC members about the screwed-up TPGS copper coins in slabs are due to the "similar" way they each approach grading, right? I guess they both value coins differently too. Sounds pretty screwed -up to me. Two groups of highly qualified folks with major disagreements. This sounds like what I read happened decades ago at the first Roundtable meeting of numismatic experts NYC long before the ANA grading Guide was published. The opinions of those experts on one early Large cent that was passed around ranged from VF, through XF, and all the way to AU. Each of those folks had a valid reason for their grading opinion.
LOL! Shows how a coin's value, rarity, and defects can change its ACTUAL (agreed upon in the end) TECHNICAL GRADE.
"That said, I kind of agree with the poster you quoted. Bill Jones kind of hit on why -- there's a signficant market for "problem" copper and there's a much smaller number of TPG-passable coins. Along that same line, and as others have noted, I, too, liked the way ANACS did it -- just details grading it and stated the problem...But really, for me at least, it's about the coin and not the holder -- slabbed coins, net graded or not, are only a means to an end. Just show me the coin and tell me the price."
Well said.
Dummies like me would not know anything about that and think I was buying a straight graded MS coin with a "Star"
Exactly. Thanks for saving many of us the typing. Very well said.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Crypto said: "All grades are net grades, ...This isn't that hard."
@Baley said: "Exactly. Thanks for saving many of us the typing. Very well said."
Wow, we are in deeper trouble than I thought. Will either of you kindly take a few sentences to defend that statement? Is my MS-69 SE actually "net" graded?
I don't think the people who wrote the grading standards call lowering the grade of an MS-70 to MS-69 because of one "nick" "Net Grading." Do you?
Yes. Otherwise, it would be a 70.
All coins below 70 are net graded.
Marks, wear, damage, and everything else "not perfect" reduce the grade and value.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
No doubt word would get out or there would be some pre-notification.
Only for those to whom grading involves a binary black and white line in which every very old coin is either OK or PROBLEM.
For those who can think in shades of grey, and more than one (figurative) dimension, it's simply a matter of applying a gestalt algorithm to arrive at a value for every piece, NET of everything that matters, and looking up the appropriate numerical grade on the 1-70 scale.
"Genuine"or "AU58 details corroded" tells very little about the value.
AU58 details, corroded, net 45 from a trusted third party expert tells much.
(And is very different from AU58 DET net 55, or AU58 DET net 12)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my impression is that, yes, they complain about the difference in standards precisely because of their differences. But the differences are subtle -- we already discussed the lower threshold for problems that the TPGs allow, but there's more to it than that. Generally speaking EAC graded coins are lower than TPG grading. But in the end, they both result in the coins being priced. The TPGs just net it all out in their one and only grade. The EAC reaches their grade by a series of steps, a bit more regimented to be sure, but ultimately they price/rank coins no differently from TPG grading -- they just use a different scale.
If a coin is priced at $100 or $1,000,000, does it matter how you got there?
That, and people just like to complain.
I would argue they value coins pretty much the exact same way. For example: Does it matter a coin is EAC graded VF20+ net F15 Average or in a PCGS VF25 slab if the EAC and PCGS price guides both say $100? I don't think it does.
But in the end, coins are individuals. And whatever the buyer and seller agree becomes the price of the coin, so part of me really just wants to ignore the discussion and land on the same point I closed my prior post to you on -- it's about the coin and the price and the grade is just a means to an end.
Your last sentence nailed it. Grading is subjective. It is opinion. It's probably safe to say that not long after the first grade was assigned to a coin, there was the first disagreement on a grade. It's just the nature of the beast, so to speak.
I don't follow you. Kindly explain.
I have taken the time to read this thread in it's entirety.... I enjoyed the humor put forth by the good Colonel. I must, however, put in my opinion (which, of course, is an opinion of opinions voiced here about opinions.). A coin graded and slabbed by a TPG has one grade. This grade is comprised of the obverse, reverse, edge and eye appeal. Now four categories, distilled into ONE grade, is, IMO (there is that opinion again), NET grading. As is frequently encountered with the English language, one term may have several definitions - especially when applied to a specific field of observation/evaluation. So, my stated interpretation can also be debated and expanded with other OPINIONS. Like it or not, the grade assigned on TPG slabs is, in fact, a net grade of the entire coin - and is the conclusive opinion after evaluating all features - good and bad - of the presented coin.
Your opinions are welcome, however, the above is based on fact - even if the result of those facts, are, in fact,
OPINIONS. Cheers, RickO
@MikeInFL
Let me lead you to the answer to my statement: "Shows how a coin's value, rarity, and defects can change its ACTUAL (agreed upon in the end) TECHNICAL GRADE." in this way, look up the grade history of the Brasher coin or the 1870-S Half dime, or the many 1804 dollars....
OK Ricko, "Checkmate." We all net grade everything.
@Insider2.... Agreed, and would also have given an LOL...but can only choose one...Cheers, RickO
Cheers, RickO
Bookmark and archive that response.
Exactly. All grading is net grading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.