PCGS Should Create a New “Technical Coin Grading” Forum Category
Stuart
Posts: 9,831 ✭✭✭✭✭
Based on very Detailed Grading Specific Discussions on recent US Coin Forum threads, PCGS should consider creating a New Forum Category specifically on the Topic of “Technical Coin Grading” to allow the US Coin Forum to focus more on the Collecting, History and Beauty of Numismatics, and focus the Technical Grading specific discussions in the new forum category.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
1
Comments
Oh man, that would be so great!
There would be very little left in the other categories. At one point I think we had 3-4 CAC threads on the front page. I think I'm going to stop reading CAC threads and grading threads all together for a few months.
No one here has the capacity to change the existing mess; none of the previous threads offer any hope that members will reach a consensus or even a basic set of standards for coin "grades;" thus, it seems that adding another forum would increase administration and member confusion with no perceptible gain to anyone.
As for the topic - my personal opinion is that there must be one and only one clearly defined and accepted standard, and one and only one "grade" for any coin based on its state of preservation. All other factors are broadly-based opinions and can vary widely depending on personal likes or dislikes.
And have the graders anonymously participate.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Unfortunately, I believe that your desired standard would be impossible to achieve. There are simply too many variables to allow each and every coin to fit neatly into just one specific numerical grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Too funny. I just told myself yesterday that I should take another 90 day Sabbatical from CAC treads. The last one worked out well...........until they dragged me back in.
I’m in if you’re in. Maybe others will join us.
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......
@Stuart I think that there is possibly enough grading specific discussion to warrant it's own forum, but I would not like to see that happen.
I like the overlap of discussion that I find here, which occurs specifically because PCGS has not subdivided the forums.
and application of a standard based on different people's opinion or interpretation of that standard creates more variables.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I would prefer that folks use the search function to look at various issues, including grading and CAC, to make the effort to read what has been posted so less time would be spent rehashing the same arguments over and over again and again.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Accuracy versus 👇 Precision in Coin Grading... 🧐😉
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
RE: "Unfortunately, I believe that your desired standard would be impossible to achieve. There are simply too many variables to allow each and every coin to fit neatly into just one specific numerical grade."
We'll have to disagree. There are ways to standardize most parts of grading, but it requires an understanding of technology, sampling, statistics and, most important, open minds. to be developed. Virtually all of the "variables" can be reduced to manageable ranges, and aspects of personal taste can, and should, be left to buyer-seller and the open market.
Occasional exceptions will exist - but they will be true "exceptions" and not the large piles of guesswork that seen prevalent today.
I'll not bother with this subject further; it's obvious few are willing to look beyond their own transparent sartorial splendor and accoutrement.....
This site needs a separate category for so-called 'So-called Dollars'.
The "back catalog" of threads here is amazing. I find a lot of use in the search function as do many others I am sure.
This is all good news for public and private owners of grading companies - a coin's grade will never be final, it will be graded again and again and again...
How about "Whatchamacallit Dollars and Half Dollars and other Stuffs" for a separate category....?
Too broad
Wee, then -- just "Stuffs" or "Sf" for short....?
One can wish for a clearly defined and applied standard, yet still believe that it’s unobtainable. Hopefully, your last paragraph wasn’t meant to be as insulting as it sounded to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't know, might be too specific......I'll get back to you
Maybe, possibly, a sub forum devoted to grading and ALL of the issues inherent to it........ but it would just amount to another administrative issue.
RE: "One can wish for a clearly defined and applied standard, yet still believe that it’s unobtainable. Hopefully, your last paragraph wasn’t meant to be as insulting as it sounded to me."
Take the truth however you wish, Mark.
Neither your personal opinions, nor mine, nor those of others are necessarily synonymous with “the truth” or fact.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A "Technical Coin Grading forum category" has a lot of merit, but I am afraid that it would just consolidate the grading opinions of amateurs without improving the grading skills of forum members. I would much prefer if PCGS would conduct an on line grading forum whereby they would periodically post a GTG for forum members to respond, and then reveal their grading decision and an explanation of the factors that were considered.
And perhaps we could then all better grade from photos?
OINK
Mark - It is your presumption that "nothing can be done" that is false.
The changes I've suggested, multiple times, can be implemented. Little disruption would occur - might not even be noticed by some.
I'm not going to bother commenting here - If anyone is genuinely interested in how to improve the overall approach and consistency of coin "grading" they can contact me.
Stating that I “... still believe that it’s unobtainable” is not making a “presumption”, much less, one that “nothing can be done”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nah. How about we just eliminate eBay threads?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Have you contacted Brett or Mark (Salzberg) about your ideas?
I've been hoping for a new forum category entitled something like, "1801 Large Cent S-223 Die States: Do They All Actually Exist as Described by He Who Shall Not Be Named?".
Smitten with DBLCs.
Deal.
Only people with something NEW to say about CAC may participate. (So, basically, there will be an automatic sabbatical).
PCGS should consider creating a forum for the The Overuse of BOLD ITALIC LETTERS to allow the US Coin Forum to focus more on the highlighted text and enjoy the Relevant Posts!! jk, luv ya stu
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
CCL/CHL
It is my belief that true standards can be achieved and applied through AI....The details of grading can be defined, measured and tabulated when using AI, thus allowing grades to be established according to measurable standards. When such is achieved, the 'feel good' parameters will be eliminated from grading and left to the market - as it should be. Cheers, RickO
I believe 1 of the situations which has caused quite e few variables is strike weakness. I remember when the grading services started allowing for strike weakness with the Buffalo Nickels. There are even dates that are specifically mentioned in some grading guides. I've also had several Buffalo nickel's the strikes were so weak if not for the outstanding luster they would have graded VG-F instead of AU-Unc!
As a consumer/end user I've come to the conclusion that I'll participate in the graded coin industry when I think it is absolutely necessary, and not much otherwise.
Too many nuances and too much inconsistency have provided too much wiggle room for bad financial deals to occur. I've listened to too many conversations at coin shows that make it clear how things go.
I still agree with David Hall & David Bowers - have fun with your coins, and collect what you find interesting - respectively.
I knew it would happen.
Before I start, most of you could not describe TRUE "technical grading" if I offered a $1000 prize. It was NOT practiced at ANACS in Co in spite of what they made up when they adopted the words. Describing the strict, actual condition of preservation of a coin without regard to anything is only part of the story.
I disagree, true technical grading is very easy to teach, learn, and use. The problem is "the market" refuses to adopt AND KEEP unchanging strict grading standards. Money is made by keeping grading a subjective mystery connected by a group of variables that only dedicated numismatists and dealers have the knowledge to apply! A coins worth is the biggest problem. Even long-time knowledgeable professional dealers have not mastered this aspect completely!
As long as its condition stays the same - its TRUE technical grade will NEVER CHANGE when connected to the long time (now defunct) standard based on No Trace of Wear and the grades assigned as it circulates.
Don't Bother! All of us could insist on change and nothing would change. Things are fairly stable as they are. Knowledgeable folks know about "gradeflation." The TPGS mostly do a great job much of the time. Remember, they are not perfect and all we read about here are possible errors out of millions of coins.
Many folks have a low comprehension of English. I'll post many times before thinking after a quick read.
**I use caps and italics very often for emphasis. I am not shouting (most of the time).
>
Technical grading and a clearly defined standard might work for circulated coins, but I don’t see how it can be achieved for uncirculated and Proof examples. For example, please show us a written standard that will consistently differentiate an (easy-to-grade type) MS64 Morgan dollar from an MS65? I don’t think you can do it, but I will applaud you if you can.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great. Hopefully you'll agree that it works for circulated grades BECAUSE IT DID when it was used in the 1970's and at the first TPGS.
Now, check out the "very BASIC" description of those two grades in the ANA Grading guide. This is not sufficient for anyone to make the distinction but it is a good start. For example, strike needs to be included.
Furthermore, when the true technical was formulated there were ONLY TWO GRADES of MS. UNC (60-64) and Choice Unc (65 or better). There were no 70's. With a little tweaking (for example who needs 10 grades of MS) an easy system is possible. Things like toning, strike, and eye-appeal do not influence the actual condition the coin is in from the time it was originally made.
Grade the condition and let the seller and buyer put a value on it based on the coin's condition + the variables of color, strike, eye appeal, damage, desirability, mintage, etc
Simply put. The more variables that are taken out of the equation, the more precise and never changing a grade will be.
Take the unique 1870-S Half dime once graded AU with a weak strike. The coin was blue/black with toning rubbed off some of the high points when first seen. Now, its color and grade has changed much of it because the coin is much more attractive as it is now.
PS Personally, I wouldn't change anything about the way coins are graded right now EXCEPT no AU coins would be graded MS. They would be correctly graded and their VALUE WOULD BE UNCHANGED.
Take your time, use as many or as few variable as you deem appropriate and I will await your descriptions for MS64 and MS65 Morgan dollars.😉
I don’t think words can sufficiently differentiate one MS or PF grade from another (with the possible exception of 70 vs. 69), to allow for a clearly defined and consistently applied standard.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LMAO, yeah, 'simple and unchanging ', and almost useless.
Why not just weigh the thing, use calipers to measure the dimensions, and leave it at that?
Let "the buyer and seller" determine everything else about the coin?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I guess you never saw the INSAB (first TPGS) detailed grading form. After the numeric grade was given, every aspect of the coin was evaluated in detail. I'll try to hunt one up. As I remember there were three levels of strike, 5-6 levels of contact marks by type, four or five levels of original luster, etc. The form took at least 4 minutes to fill out as the major marks and planchet flaws were noted on both sides of the coin.
As for a verbal description, I think that is done in several grading guides. Professionals such as yourself make the 64 - 65 determination in a matter of seconds for hundreds of coins on a daily basis.
So let's try this instead as I think CU members will enjoy the challenge:
Take YOUR time and post two images that are very sharp that I can magnify. Then let us all play a GTG poll - two choices MS-64 or MS-65, You pick the most difficult an closest coins you can find BUT you must agree 100% with the grade they were assigned and no + coins allowed. I'll bet the majority of folks here can tell the difference. After the poll results are in I'll pick the two coins apart with their technical grade and give reasons. That way, anyone can read my description and see the difference.
Not as silly as net grading! Furthermore the archaic way you suggested to grade has already been written about BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. Check it out.
When I learned to grade, it was the wild west. There were strict grading standards that were easily understood. Unfortunately, most did not follow them. In fact, some greedy, weasel, dealer had just invented the AU grade. At first it was a liner but eventually it took over most of the "old" XF segment! There were also fewer grades. If I give you two boxes, new or not new to throw coins in, you and everyone else would be an excellent grader and we'ed only have a few coins to discuss which box they belonged in.
The secret to precise grading is a strict, never changing standard with NO variables. Examples, MS/AU. Or better,MS-65 Flat Strike/MS-65. Both, coins have full blazing original luster with virtually no detracting marks. One has a flat strike and is worth much less money. All the variables have been removed making each of these easy to grade and also easy to visualize without an image here. Grading coins is simple with a little effort and good instruction. Pricing a coin is virtually impossible for most of us. That's why there is a CAC. That's why the difference in price (often large) between coins with the same date and grade. Say, that's like the old Wild West Days!
Laugh all you wish. This subject and many of the comments in this discussion amuses me also.
I’ll pass. I’m under the impression that you disagreed with me regarding the impracticality of written standards for Unc. and Proof coins. I’ve read various written guide descriptions and have yet to see any which adequately differentiated between any two contiguous grades, other than 69 and 70.
You should be able to present your written standards without referring to posted images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
OK, I'll play the game but later. I'll need to round up all the easily available already published standards for MS-64 and MS-65 just because it may be helpful to someone reading this discussion.
I completely agree with you. I bought my first “details” coin ever the other day. It has a scratch that blends in with the eagles wing. Very appealing for what it is. I have seen straight graded coins that I didn’t like and I have seen details coins with scratches in the fields that just kill the coin. You can’t throw all these detail coins in the same basket and put them into a price guide. Let the seller and buyer figure out the “value” and move on.
A lot of interesting concepts thrown out here. I am enjoying my self reading these. This thread sets me on doing a bit more digging up now
thx
@MFeld said: "Unfortunately, I believe that your desired standard would be impossible to achieve. There are simply too many variables to allow each and every coin to fit neatly into just one specific numerical grade.
I don't know how I overlooked this the first time. This is correct. That's why most of the new proposed systems break a grade into segments as is being done with ancients.
@Colonialcoin said: "I completely agree with you. I bought my first “details” coin ever the other day. It has a scratch that blends in with the eagles wing. Very appealing for what it is. I have seen straight graded coins that I didn’t like and I have seen details coins with scratches in the fields that just kill the coin. You can’t throw all these detail coins in the same basket and put them into a price guide. Let the seller and buyer figure out the “value” and move on."
Detail grading of circulated coins is very close to the old technical grading. You grade the coin based on the remaining design and state the problem. Much better than allowing the problem to drop the grade into nonsense territory (net grading) because that's what the coin is worth.
Perhaps @Baley
will get a laugh from this post also. I hope so. 
............ You can’t throw all these detail coins in the same basket and put them into a price guide. Let the seller and buyer figure out the “value” and move on.
The problem is that the majority of collectors and buyers of coins can't properly "value" a coin with many nuances (ie strange color, indifferent strike, unusual marks or too many of them, variations in luster, eye appeal, etc.). The TPG's "grade" coins by their market value, not their technical grade. To go back to let the buyer and seller decide dumps a huge segment of the hobby into the "valuation" abyss. They'll get smoked a lot as it would be not much different from pre-1986 coin grading. Let the buyer beware....and let the coin dealer be happy.
Technical Grading would be a nightmare. And grading real AU's as AU's would mean placing about 90% of all current TPG MS bust halves into the AU category. There would be a flood of AU58 coins. Valuing them all would also be a nightmare. Some would be worth AU58 money, some at MS61-63 money, and some at MS64-65 money. Most collectors would not be able to make that price distinction. Who cares if you can technical grade a coin but can't value it to within 10-30%?
Roadunner "gets it."
The dude who just wants to match up the remaining detail with the picture or line drawing in his little book doesn't seem to understand that it's not really a "net grade" so much as a "net overall Quality appraisal. "
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My first lesson in grading 1796/97 bust halves came down to me looking at the B&D, Redbook, and Photograde guides to figure out if the raw 1797 half I was considering buying out of a very large half dollar collection was an AG03, G04, or G06. I never held one before. But I sure wanted to own one. I went by the lines on the drawings and photos in the guide books. And that messed it all up. The coin didn't have full rims for one. Wholesome coin with a nice planchet. I graded it AG via "technical grading" and passed because the seller was asking G04 money....around $9K to $10K at that time. We were both wrong. The next owner (Andy Seminario) knew the "market grading" on this one and paid the asking price. It graded out G06 as I recall and netted him a quick +20 to +30%.
Going "by the lines" or by the guides can get you the wrong result. Some of them are just too darn strict. And no 2 coins are the same. Well, at least I ended up with a 50% share in the choice UNC 1874-cc semi-PL half that was in that collection. We paid $6500. It graded out 63 (1988). Today it's in a 64 holder. Too bad I didn't keep it.