Mike Sherman on Eye Appeal
burdell
Posts: 55 ✭✭✭✭
Just received the RCMR magazine from PCGS. Mike Sherman wrote an article about eye appeal. It is smartly written. He discusses only silver coins using several images, but I found it compelling even though I only collect gold. In fact I find that I like almost everything he writes because of how he writes whether I am keen on the subject or not.
In the last paragraph "At some point, PCGS may begin recognizing coins with what we believe to have outstanding eye appeal...….it might be something we would consider formally acknowledging." Hmmmm, opening a can of worms? Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Or should it be on the holder (slab)?
4
Comments
There isn't even a pretense that "eye appeal" can be objectively or reliably "graded."
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Eye appeal is more important than the grade IMO
The TPGs should render a technical grade only, and let the market determine its aesthetic value. I'm not submitting a coin to a TPG to tell me if they think it's pleasing to the eye.
My position has never changed.
Cheers
Bob
NGC already does this with their "star" designations... Maybe PCGS wants to go that route. I hope they do not.
- Jim
Truth. If the eye appeal is natural only. "Book value" matters most for some.
Regardless of its merits, adding a “star” like designation would help drive submissions.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I thought the plus (+) grade was supposed to denote that the coin exhibits exceptional eye appeal, and indicate that the coin was in the top 30% of coins in the grade, no?
Seated Dollar Collection
Eye appeal is even more subjective than the current grading system... not everyone thinks tarnish is attractive... and we know many do not like blast white coins.... Art is just as subjective... not to mention what men or women find attractive in the opposite sex...I have seen people raving over coins here, and to me, they look like they sat in cat litter for a year...It is ridiculous to assign some level or grade for eye appeal... Cheers, RickO
I read that earlier tonight myself and was saddened to see that PCGS is going to do this. I see a move like this as more dumbing down of collectors, I think I can decide for myself what is eye appealing and I don't need a TPG to do that for me. I am not a fan of the star designation that is used ats for this same reason. I understand that this would be good for the TPG as many registry participants will run right out and create thousands of new submissions for registry points, but a move like this doesn't help or benefit the hobby at all imo.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Mike Sherman makes a great case to the differences in the purposes of Sheldon grading and market price grading. TPG's from their inception adopted the Sheldon grading scale as THE standard. But collector's rely on TPG estimate of value, much like Red Book did before TPG's. Sherman just points out the obvious....value and technical grade as conceived by Sheldon are not connected at the hip. Eye appeal has much greater impact on value than does technical grade.
One of the most significant advantages of TPG was to establish a value standard based upon assigned grade, essentially becoming a market maker for the coin (and other collectibles) market. CAC to date has achieved much success in that they offer to buy the coins that they approve. But at what price might they pay? I would suggest that it is one thing to provide an estimate of value, and another thing to issue a buy sheet based upon a TPG grade.
Perhaps it is time for TPG's to abandon the Sheldon grading scale, or at least change it to make eye appeal a much more important factor in determining grade. As Sherman so visibly illustrated, eye appeal is way more important to value than is technical grade. Perhaps a coin with a technical grade of 67 with motley toning should only be graded as 64 and a coin with a technical grade of 65 with great eye appeal should be graded 67. In this way coin value would be more reflective of the grading scale.
Of course this will not bode well for those collectors who bought the plastic and not the coin........
OINK
That's what the PCGS Grading page says:
https://www.pcgs.com/grades
There are many collectors including myself that do not do this. "But collector's rely on TPG estimate of value, much like Red Book did before TPG's."
I do agree with you and Mike that: value and technical grade as conceived by Sheldon are not connected at the hip. Eye appeal can have a much greater impact on value than technical grade.
This statement is scary "Perhaps it is time for TPG's to abandon the Sheldon grading scale, or at least change it to make eye appeal a much more important factor in determining grade."
TPG's are having difficulty consistently assigning accurate technical/market grades for problem-free original coins. Eye appeal can be very subjective, adding more subjectivity to grading is a bad idea.
The coins I've submitted with eye appeal have typically graded higher than their technical merits.
I'm convinced that the free market does a much better job of determining a coins value than any TPG. Premium quality coins with eye appeal have always realized premiums. I'm unaware of any precise eye appeal standards that a TPG would use to consistently and accurately determine grades. I understand why you would like TPG's to give addition weight to eye-appeal but without detailed standards it's a giant can of worms.
If you know of these standards, please share them with us.
It’s already being added as a component of market and plus grading.
I’d like to see PCGS more PL and DMPL before adding a signifier forneye appeal.
Yes, they are which is why I said technical/market grades. That doesn't mean it's being done well or that there are detailed standards being used.
As Ricko and many others have said, without clear well defined standards accurate, repeatable, grading is wishful thinking.
Isn't that what the AT manufacturers are doing (trying to do) now?
PCGS seems to work overtime to keep all of their cows in the barn. I have coins with lower technical grades that seem to be upgraded because of attractive toning. But I have coins with both high technical grade and great appearance (toning) that PCGS will not improve the grade from a 67 to a 67+ or 68. So great appearance is graded relativisticaly. But their bell curve can be said to not change because of appearance.
On the other hand many coins with a high technical grade are never downgraded for poor toning and appearance. There seems to be a segment of the market who believes only technical grade should be a consideration, but from Sherman's paper It sounds like this may be changing.
OINK
Thanks to all of you for sharing your insightful thoughts on this topic.
One point I'd like to clarify: I thought I had made it quite clear in my concluding paragraph that PCGS "may consider acknowledging exceptional eye appeal", and it "might be something we would consider formally acknowledging. Somehow that got translated into something we were going to do. How that happened, I'm not sure. That idea is by no means a done deal. Not even close.
Now that that subject has hopefully been clarified, I'd certainly enjoy reading additional comments on the topic in general. It is really a tough one for TPG's, as in so many cases eye appeal dramatically affects market prices and upsets the traditional (and intended) relationship between market value and numerical grade. Your thoughts are welcome.
Mike Sherman
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Thanks for the clarification, I enjoyed your article and completely agree that "It is really a tough one for TPG's, as in so many cases eye appeal dramatically affects market prices and upsets the traditional (and intended) relationship between market value and numerical grade."
My recommendation is for TPG's to focus on improving the accuracy and consistency of their product while utilizing existing and new technology to fight coin doctoring and counterfeiting.
Interesting thoughts in this thread. Is there anyone here though that although enjoys lustrous toning also doesn't like a natural, blast white coin?
Is was brought up and got me curious about it.
peacockcoins
Say it ain't so, I certainly can appreciate the freshness and beauty of a natural blast white coin.
A blast white ms68 1881-S Morgan would have more eye appeal to me than a blast white 1881-S Morgan in ms61.
If and when they do it it will be an opinion just like the grade is. You are free to agree or disagree with the grade and or determination of EA. Trying to apply an objective quantifiable standard to a subjective quality is a fool's errand.
I thought the "+" was for in between grades. Like 64+ meant it was better than 64, but not quite 65. Am I wrong on that?
I think that that’s where we’ll end up, once we have a viable computer-assisted grading service. And I think it will be a good thing for the hobby, the market and the business. It will empower both collectors and dealers by making their own opinions more relevant, and by forcing the market to price coins more on their individual merits and less on the merits of other coins that have traded.
That said, technical grading would have been a disaster for PCGS if adopted from Day 1. The market would have laughed them out of town.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Forgive me , I'm new, and as far as I'm concerned I have no right even being in this thread. But coming into this _**hobby **
Does eye appeal come into play, regarding, no tools needed for viewing. Another aspect was referenced as per computers grading. Face it people, coming from the printing industry 45 - 50 years many have not survived , its gonna happen, and when its in place , what happens to the thrill of the hunt? ... Sorry... proceed
Hi Mike,
It’s been a very long time! Were I to have one, my vote regarding “acknowledging exceptional eye appeal” would be “no”.
I believe that grading is subjective enough, as is. And that such a designation/qualifier only adds to the subjectivity.
Additionally, in many cases, eye appeal is already a component of a coin’s grade. I’ve seen many coins whose grade already appeared to have received a bump for eye appeal and which have also received a star for exceptional eye appeal. That double whammy strikes me as a large distortion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
......my eye.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I agree that true technical grading (as practiced in the 70's & early 80's) will eventually come back. We have already seen it make a comeback with "detailed slabs." Grade the coin (NO NET GRADING CRAP) and state the problem!
I'm going to disagree with you last sentence. When PCGS was established, the ANA's Certification Service (2nd TPGS) was using a "bastardized" technical system that they claimed was "technical grading." Close but no cigar. The INS Authentication Bureau (1st TPGS) was using the "TRUE" technical grading system that was actually devised and developed by their staff for the internal records used at the ANA's Authentication Service (1st authentication service in US) while they were employed there in DC.
The problem with technical grading was it had no relationship to a coin's value, rarity, OR EYE APPEAL. The graders were not major coin dealers and only needed to describe a coin's actual condition of preservation from the day it was struck. This was done to help identify a coin that was authenticated (along with photos and weight) in case it was either lost or seen again.
If PCGS would have adopted a modified technical system (something that would be very easy to do now with the knowledge gained from the ensuing decades) perhaps something as done with ancient coins or the rating system used for a while on the reverse of some ANACS photo certs, IMO that "new" PCGS grading system, along with the more important SLAB and major DEALER NETWORK would have guaranteed it would be adopted and still successful today. In fact, no one would even know about the CAC bean today! GRADE THE COIN properly. Then let the market determine if it is attractive and what it is worth.
I've started a discussion about what is needed to have an Ideal Grading System so I'm not going to comment any more here or in that thread until I have lots of time on Sunday.
And market prices should be of no concern to TPGs. Market price should have absolutely zero bearing on the technical grade of the coin.
Cheers
Bob
@Outhaul said: "And market prices should be of no concern to TPGs. Market price should have absolutely zero bearing on the technical grade of the coin."
We are fighting a lost battle. One of the first questions I ask in my grading classes is "Why do we need grading?"
The ONLY answer I ever get is: "To put a value on a coin." Then their learning begins...
I like and can appreciate both.
I buy and sell both.
I really don't have a preference except when it comes to my copper.
(Preferably BN/RB) although I won't shun a cherry red cartwheel Lincoln.😉
Oh, but market price does matter and in turn drives submissions, which affects supply, which drives demand,which drives prices, which drives submissions, ...oh, forget it, I'm getting dizzy.😁
The way it should be:
COLLECTOR: What grade would you place on this coin?
TPG: We technically grade this coin at MS-65.
COLLECTOR: What about value?
TPG: We don't consider market value when we grade a coin. Our only concern it the technical grade. We are in the coin grading business. We let the market decide what the value is.
The reality:
COLLECTOR: What grade would you place on this coin?
TPG: That depends heavily upon a combination of eye appeal, technical grade, the market value of the coin, and the value difference between grades.
Other than people who sell their coins (both dealers and collectors), who actually hangs their hat on the declared value in the TPG's price guide? The answer is no one.
Just my eversohumble opinion based upon observation.
Cheers
Bob
Are we trying to say the EACers have been doing it right all along?
No.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ahah! That's it! I finally figured out why I spend so much every year on cat litter!
Kind regards,
George
There the level of strike/ the amount of details....is the coin all there? This aspect in a coin's overall eye appeal is the most important in determining a coin's grade. Even the US Mint in it's glossary states;
Strike: The process of stamping a coin blank with a design. The strength of the imprint – full, average, or weak – affects the value of rare coins.
Next is the condition of the coin, the location of the marks, if any, are they central to the viewer's eye where they are a distraction to the coin's overall eye appeal. Marks come in an array of descriptions; scratches, carbon spotting, hairlines to name a couple. The state of the dies also plays a role into the grade of its condition. A weak strike is just plain ugly and effects the overall eye appeal quite negatively.
One word can be change with, the strength of the luster – full, average, or weak – affects the value of rare coins. How intense the luster on a coin will effect its overall eye appeal. Let me note here, subtle luster on the earliest of die state strikes is far rarer than blast white luster. Also, I've always have considered proof-like surfaces is a higher extension of die pollishing and thus, a much rarer form of luster on coins.
And lastly, toning/colors/slight corrosion. Too much will diminish the luster and overall eye appeal so.......there's got to be a balance of the two. Something like 5 to 25% toning with 75 to 95% luster, IMO are the most beautiful coins. If you're seeing only the toning, it's likely the luster is pretty much gone.
Eye appeal? Oh that's already been mentioned numerous times above and totally supported by the four most important aspects of a coin.
Yeah, yeah yeah, I had nothing to do so I sat here and wrote all the above. It's very windy out and cold and I know my truck tire needs air...definitely tomorrow before church.
Ah, wait......can't forget to post a coin.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The cat facing the camera looks a bit cranky!
Well, then, What is the POINT of your "Technical Grading?
Seriously, if it's not an evaluation and appraisal of the overall Quality of the piece, what the hell good does it do anyone?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
You're fighting a "lost battle".
Think about it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
A technical grade would be more useful to someone contemplating a purchase based on online images.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The technical grade is part of the rating, the easy part. The Net part (up or down) is The rest, and more difficult.
Ya don't review a movie with simply: "it's one hour 35 minutes long and stars Jennifer Lawrence and Tom Hanks"
Steakhouse: "The meat weighed 13 oz. and was cooked medium."
Art museum: "There were 32 paintings and they were of people and scenery"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Wine: "It's dark red and the pH is 6.3!" Stop here, do not get subjective!
House: "it's 2400 sq. ft. and was built in 1988."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Assignment of a numerical grade based upon wear, nicks, luster, strike is also a subjective evaluation. Consider the wide variation in GTG threads on this forum. Adding appearance, which is definitely a subjective criteria, seems very threatening to some collectors. If the technical grade as exists now could be downgraded because of eye appeal, those collectors who bought the holder have every right to be concerned.
OINK
I've been trying to find out for years who the mental "genius" was that devised that stupid, net grading nonsense and what he was shooting up. Sorry to tell you little johnny that your AU-"details" coin is really over graded. Actually it is only a Very Fine! HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA LOL. Please shoot me!
People who want to actually buy and sell rare, old coins with a variety of problems, rather than have shallow philosophies about how things "should be" in their fantasies. THAT'S who.
"VF details, scratched" tells me very little about the overall Quality for a R6 bust quarter.
"VF details minor scratch reverse feathers. Net Fine" tells me it's a much better coin than "VF details, major scratch obv. cheek, Net Good"
I might just buy either coin, for a fair price. I'd Never know what to pay for the VF details scratched coin until i take that next step of evaluation.
Why does it bother you so much that pragmatists think this way?
It's my collection and my money.
What's yer prob??
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I am still trying to become an expert on Brown and Dunn grading which I grew up on.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.