New Grading Suggestion: Four Grades per Coin. Devices. Fields. Obverse. Reverse.
RedRocket
Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭✭
Each PCGS coin would have four grades. Two for the obverse and two for the reverse. Each side would have separate grades for the devices (portrait) and the fields.
For example, a Morgan dollar might be graded MS62 MS65 MS65 MS61.
The collector determines what is important to them. Some would like cleaner fields and don't care if the devices are of a lower grade and others want a puffy, clean cheek and don't mind chatter in the fields.
CAC would have to adjust their logic and thinking too when it comes to stickering these coins.
PCGS would be the innovator with NGC certainly soon following in PCGS's footsteps.
I don't expect compensation for this idea, maybe PCGS throws me a few vouchers. That's cool.
7
Comments
Seems like people can do that right now, can't they?
Already difficult enough for price guides to keep up to date with just one grade per coin!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
Nicer. 4x the number of arguments for each coin and 4x the number of regrades.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Certainly NOT for me.
Genius. That way we can pay 4x as much for fixing no problems.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Dislike.
Coin Rarities Online
Sadly I am not seeing an added value or a benefit to this grading concept.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Thank you!
Bummer.
Why the pushback?
Once the average collector is used to it the benefits will far outweigh any perceived negative connotations.
What benefits do you get from more numbers on the label? Regardless of whether you like cleaner fields or a puffy clean cheek, you can already look at the coin and select for that. You don't need a label to tell you what you prefer, do you?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Great, four highly subjective numbers instead of just one that has been the standard FOREVER.
Imaging today is far better, far cheaper, and nearly immediate as opposed to in 1986. People are not buying with just Teletrade lot descriptions anymore. If we need that much hand holding, then we are numismatic lazyasses. Even split grades (obv/rev) hardly make sense. Already have enough, arguably more than enough (with pluses and stars and stickers), to maintain a reasonably orderly market. But I always worry that one of the greedy TPGs will start filling in the circ grades: F14, XF48, AU59, ... I honestly think that is just a matter of time, as it would push so many regrades through the system, especially trying to get an AU59+ CAC.
Yes, what is the benefit of replacing one opinion with four opinions?
Perhaps further explanation.
Say, for example you own two 1921 Morgan dollars. Both are brilliant uncirculated.
The first has a deep gouge in the right field next to the portrait. Liberty herself is untouched.
The reverse is also fully GEM.
The second 1921 Morgan silver dollar has a near flawless fields. No slide marks or scratches to be seen.
Sadly, though the devices have been tooled and show alterations.
The first would probably be details graded along with the second.
Under this new grading evaluations, the first would grade "VF20 MS67 MS65 MS66.
The second might easily grade MS68 AG03 AG03 MS67.
Why punish the whole coin for a partial issue? Why should the devices be lumped into problems the fields have or vice versa?
What are today just scrap bullion value coins could/would then be worth hundreds more.
Obviously PCGS would need more time per coin for evaluation and thus the cost might easily double or triple what is charged now, but the coin will retain more of an overall value now and in the future.
Please address and questions and together we will seek solutions.
A solution in search of a problem! Love it! PCGS can charge 4x more for grading too! Win win!!!
Yes.
The voice of reason.
Now, if you can get some of the other malcontents to get on board.
As interesting as this would be, I would imagine the market would get more extreme!
"Another day, another Collectors Universe forum scrolling session."
- Someone, probably
Because it's a whole coin, not a piece of one.
Would you suggest providing a separate grade for the field in front of the portrait and the field behind? If not, why not?
I think you have it backwards - I’m quite content with PCGS grading and CAC stickering.
Seriously, why would you want to make grading more complicated and more expensive?
Can you present three reasons why this would be a good idea for collectors?
By the way, dual grading was already tried by a major TPG and it didn’t work.
PS - I think there is at least a 50% chance you are trolling.
I'll take the over!!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
Don't be afraid of buying problem coins today. I don't shy away from a nice coin in a details holder. Let the market decide the price of a coin, not the government of the numismatic industry. I'm libertarian in my coin politics, pushing for buyer education and careful purchases. Don't let a tiny slip of paper break you from enjoying the hobby.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Innovation sometimes can be a little uncomfortable.
The cost is offset by the increased value of the coin.
1- Marketability.
2- Stability.
3- Peace of Mind.
The real question is have collectors at large really become so incompetent that they can no longer tell when there is a mark in the fields of a coin?
I fail to believe that is the case. I also can't see how this idea helps the market in any way shape or form besides grading services getting more revenue.
Coin Photography
That's one of the features I like on the ANACS photo certs. Obverse and reverse grading and they also note luster and strike on the back as below average, average and above average.
Why would that happen?
If (assuming for the moment you're right about the value increasing) you're selling the coin, but if it's already in your collection...
No, it can get tough enough as it is
Excellent point. This comment should be further evaluated.
The addition here is grading the high points (devices) from the low points (the fields).
This allows for featuring the value of what is right about the coin instead of always focusing on what is wrong with the coin.
I do kind of like the NGC style of grading for ancients. There is a separate strike and preservation grade. Two for each side, however, is probably overkill.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
..> @RedRocket said:
If you're using the same grading system but just separating out the high point/low point components, aren't you going from focusing on what is wrong with the coin in one overall rating to focusing on what is wrong with the coin in four different ways?
I double checked the date to make sure that it isn’t April Fool’s Day. Now we can play a new game. Instead of Guess the Grade, it will be called Guess the Grades.
4 different grades. No thanks.
Some coins (same numerical grade, slab) are PQ high end coins. Others are low end in the grade range. Coins that are PQ will bring higher bids.
Pricing is difficult enough as it is.
Impractical commercially and unneeded. I believe others have proposed similar schemes.
It just sounds unnecessarily complicated to me. With the current system, the TPG's opinion combined with my own eyeballs tells me all I need to know.
I fail to see how more numbers on the coins I own would make them more marketable. I don’t understand the stability comment and would suggest the opposite is true - there will be more grade inflation, crack outs and evolving standards. It’s still one firm’s opinion - how do I get peace of mind from more details? CAC already addressed peace of mind by providing a second opinion.
.
Here's a couple of questions for collectors:
How many slabbed coins do you have in your collection? How much do you want to spend to have them regraded?
You forgot + and - grades available for each of the 4
Fixed it for you.
We should also have an individual grade for rims and another for the edge. And really, the grades on the devices should be split into central devices and legends/mottos.
So ideally every coin should have 8 grades:
1) Obverse central devices
2) Obverse legends/mottos
3) Obverse fields
4) Reverse central devices
5) Reverse legends/mottos
6) Reverse fields
7) Rims
8) Edge
And of course all of this should be presented without clutter on a sleek, easy-to-read label.
It’s so simple, I can’t believe it hasn’t already been done.
Back when ANACS kicked off the whole third-party grading thing in the 1980s (and before PCGS came along with their "slabs"), ANACS initiated a split-grade system - so, two grades were assigned per coin, one of the "main" grade (the obverse) and a second for the reverse. Thus, an MS-65/62 coin had an MS65 obverse and an MS62 reverse, while an MS-62/65 would have an MS62 obverse and an MS65 reverse.
The system was abandoned not long afterwards. Why? It was simply too complicated, especially when everyone was still running off of price guides that only listed one grade. Is an MS-65/62 coin worth the MS65 price? The 62 price? Somewhere in between? Exactly [b]where[/b] in between? Is an MS-65/62 worth the same as an MS-62/65? If not, then where?
The whole point of TPG grading is to simplify things and remove variables that people could argue about. Split grading only adds variables, unless you have an encyclopedia-sized price guide that lists every possible combination of grade. If the OP's system were adopted, with 30 grading levels and four gradings per coin, that's 30^4 or 810,000 possible different grades. Imagine listing that, for every single type, date and mintmark.
There are other ways to get the OP's desired outcome. NGC Ancients currently uses a two-tier triple-value grading system, where assigns numerical scores for "Strike" and "Surface" (both on a 1 to 5 scale) and then assigns an overall adjectival grade equivalent to a Sheldon grade. The extra nuance is deemed necessary and important as ancients can have a lot more variability in appearance compared to modern coins, but there's still that single net grade that you need to know to be able to look the thing up in a catalogue or price guide.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
Hypothetical: Obverse MS-70, Reverse PO-01
Now that id like see 🤥
Do you mean MS70 MS70 PO1 PO1?
Remember, there are four 'grades' not just two.
Any coin that looks like that today, what grade would PCGS opine?
I like it, you could get a CAC on 3 of 4 and call it a hat trick.
I'm sure this would help with submission turnover time, not!
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
Wouldn't that be a CAC trick?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Triple the cost of submission and double the amount of graders.
(Problem solved.)
This would also weed out coins that never should be graded in the first place, like worn-out war nickels or AU'ish memorial cents.
C'mon
I do appreciate your enthusiasm but this wouldn't fly in 1000 years.
Good idea though
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
Thank you.
I like to see forward thinking progressive acts to make our hobby more beneficial to collectors and dealers.
NGC has a more nuanced grading system for ancients, or at least they did. I recall a 5 point system for strike and another for surface preservation, or something like that, in addition to their letter grade (XF, etc). I also recall Rick Snow proposing a more elaborate grading system.
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a separate grade of sorts for strike and surface preservation as technology will allow measuring these variables - they are more objective. That would add value IMO as collectors could focus on eye appeal, which is hugely subjective.
By all scientific logic the aerodynamics of the humble bumble bee precludes it from any ability to fly.
The problem is the bumble bee doesn't know that and flies regardless of the proof it can't.
We collectively can make the above happen.
We're Americans not american'ts.