100 Point Grading Scale

homerunhall · October 6, 2005 12:52AM

Hello fellow message board members,

I was reading a thread on the message board which basically said that Dr. Sheldon wasn't such a Gem BU guy. So I wondered why we are even using the 70 point scale. It's illogical in a base 10 world. Maybe we should discuss the 100 point scale. We could do it at the January FUN show in Orlando.

We made the announcement and then some people apparently assumed...falsely...that

1. PCGS was going to change to a 100 point grading scale.
2. That we were going to charge for reholders and make a bunch of money.
3. That we were in favor of a 100 point scale.
4. That there would be more Uncirculated grades than the 11 (60 to 70) that the market currently uses. Maybe there should be less!!!!

Anyway, that's what happened. Seems like there's some very strong opinions on this. Maybe we should discuss it at the Florida coin show. Or maybe we should talk about something else.

Hope to see you in Florida.

David Hall

Gator5220 · October 6, 2005 12:56AM

12 inches = 1 foot?

pharmer · October 6, 2005 12:56AM

Thanks for reading the comments and addressing this, David.

goose3 · October 6, 2005 12:59AM

<< It's illogical in a base 10 world. >>

The US isn't metric! Coin collecting is Illogical to many people so why shouldn't the scale by which we grade them match!!!!??

solid · October 6, 2005 1:00AM

David,

Thanks for addressing this here.

It's certainly worth discussion, and I'm sure there will be a bunch of it here in this thread!

For the record, I would be for changing to a new grading standard if more information could be discerned from
the grade regarding a coin's strike, luster/mirrors, hits/hairlines, originality, etc. Alternatively, this information
could supplement the existing grade without changing the scale.

Ken

Stuart · October 6, 2005 1:03AM

David: Thanks for the clarification post regarding the 100 Point Grading Scale in this thread. It's likely a worthwhile point to discuss in a public forum, which is why I asked you this same question during the April 2004 Las Vegas Invitational.

Russ · October 6, 2005 1:07AM

What? You mean everybody was in an uproar over nothing?

Russ, NCNE

ttown · October 6, 2005 1:08AM

David,

Thanks. I'm from the old school where BU, CH BU, and Gem Bu were all that was needed. I don't think spliting hairs anymore is going to solve anything but a run for a grade at a certain level that is under valued before a big jump in a coins price.

MS100 · October 6, 2005 1:10AM

It must happen!

goose3 · October 6, 2005 1:11AM

<< It must happen! >>

You've got to love it when new alts arrive over controversial topics.

MacCrimmon · October 6, 2005 1:19AM

MS100.

David, the following should be the only grades used:

1. schon (s)
2. sehr schon (ss)
3. ss.-vz
4. vorzuglich (vz)
5. gutes vz.
6. unz.
7. unz.-stempelglanz
8. stempelglanz (your basic gem unc)
9. uber-frikkin stempelglanz (the stuff I submit

)
10. erstabschlag (EA)
11. uber-frikkin EA (again, the stuff I submit

)

keets · October 6, 2005 1:19AM

So I wondered why we are even using the 70 point scale. It's illogical in a base 10 world. Maybe we should discuss the 100 point scale.

sure is a change of stance from the Q & A of a while back when DHeath asked you about it. it also seems you thought it was very important if you planned on assembling a panel to discuss things.

my hunch is that this is just the start of the dis-information campaign i forecast. at any rate, if the opinions of this forum mean squat, it should be apparent that most are against any change and that the root justification for any change is strictly financial enhancement for.........................PCGS and the other grading services which would subsequently adopt any change.

mgoodm3 · October 6, 2005 1:22AM

Oh yeah, hard to beat a good "uber-frikkin stempelglanz" graded coin.

Wolf359 · October 6, 2005 1:23AM

I'd vote for discussing something else. This one is too unpopular.

MacCrimmon · October 6, 2005 1:24AM

<< Oh yeah, hard to beat a good "uber-frikkin stempelglanz" graded coin >>

Oh yeah, that's abbreviated, UFS.

MajorDuty · October 6, 2005 1:33AM

We should have a friendly little contest: Guess at what time this afternoon this thread hits 100. Then Mr. Hall hands out the PF100 prize and an MS100 to the runner up.

keets · October 6, 2005 1:34AM

sir, 1457 hours, Major, sir.

Nocerino18 · October 6, 2005 1:35AM

100 Points =

cladking · October 6, 2005 1:37AM

I've always thought change is a good thing in all its guises so long as it is thought
out before being put in circulation. There are always repercussions but these can be managed.
Talking about such things is always a good way to predict results. While change for the sake
of change may not be a good idea, change to make improvement and to incorporate new ideas,
new technology, and increased useability or better understanding can be most beneficial.

There will always be unforeseen consequences with large changes but many of these will be
beneficial if care is taken.

Talking sounds like one hell of an idea to me.

MadMonk · October 6, 2005 1:47AM

In my experience, more variables manifests less efficiency in the Human scene.

seanq · October 6, 2005 1:51AM

<< 
Talking sounds like one hell of an idea to me. >>

But shouting, stomping and whining are so much more entertaining.

First of all, I think it's ridiculous to consider throwing out the current system based solely on the Sheldon's tarnished reputation. Just like Breen's Encyclopedia, the quality of the research or the utility of the system must be judged separately from the morality or integrity of the man who generated it.

That said, I think a new grading scale could be workable if it is used concurrently with the existing one for a number of years to get people used to the transition. That would probably mean putting two grades on a holder for a while, the new base-100 and the old base-70. Maybe by the time the crop of current-timers becomes old-timers the change could be effected completely.

It's certainly not a project I would want to spearhead, but good for you for at least initiating the discussion.

Sean Reynolds

messydesk · October 6, 2005 5:32AM

<< It's illogical in a base 10 world. >>

Touchdown 6 points, Touchdown+extra point 7 points.
Unc. 60 points, Perfect Unc. 70 points.
God Bless America!

mgoodm3 · October 6, 2005 5:53AM

A point of clarification. 70 is still a base ten number as written. We could go to a base 7 system which would give you 49 levels between 1 and 100 or better yet go to hexadecimal system.

Barry · October 6, 2005 6:01AM

4. That there would be more Uncirculated grades than the 11 (60 to 70) that the market currently uses. Maybe there should be less!!!!

I agree!

<< A point of clarification. 70 is still a base ten number as written. We could go to a base 7 system which would give you 49 levels between 1 and 100 or better yet go to hexadecimal system.

>>

MS 6F?

KurtHorn · October 6, 2005 6:11AM

How about a 30 point scale that numerically orders the grade actually being given. We don't grade by a 70 point scale now. Just try and put a listing on Ebay saying AU 59... the wolves will tear that poor unsuspecting newbie a new one. So:
PO 1 = PO 1
FR 2 = FR 2
AG 3 = AG 3
G 4 = G 4
G 6 = G 5
VG 8 = VG 6
VG 10 = VG 7
F 12 = F 8
F 15 = F 9
VF 20 = F 10
VF 25 = VF 11
VF 30 = VF 12
VF 35 = VF 13
EF 40 = EF 14
EF 45 = EF 15
AU 50 = EF 16
AU 53 = AU 17
AU 55 = AU 18
AU 58 = AU 19
MS 60 = MS 20
1 point at a time through till
MS 70 = MS 30
Notice I leveled off the F, VF, EF and AU grades to 3 each. It's silly to have so many VF grades and so many AU grades. I have never seen a correctly graded AU 50 that I didn't think was really descriptive of EF lustre wise. VF 20's are too close to Fine 15's and the price jump is frequently stupid.

I think we have too many grades now. To add more or sprinkle the grades across a 100 point system is just a waste. If you want a change... why not change to more clearly reflect the grades we currently use. If I have to listen to another dealer explaining to a newbie that there is no such thing as an AU 59 I may scream.

Plus if we had more than 30 actual grades, how could price guides reflect that? They can't list prices for all the grades even now...

That's my rant. You asked so I shared...

ziggy29 · October 6, 2005 6:16AM

<< Plus if we had more than 30 actual grades, how could price guides reflect that? They can't list prices for all the grades even now... >>

Right. As it already is now, the price guides already can't reflect some things, such as very PQ AUs generally being worth more in the marketplace than scuzzy-looking low-grade MS coins.

I think that results in a lot of PQ AU-58 and even some technical AU-55 coins being market graded into mint state holders when they clearly ain't mint state, because the graders are trying to assess a market value rather than a technical grade. The result? Nice AU coins lost forever in MS holders.

But that's not something that requires a change to the 70 point system to fix. It just requires acknowledging some overlap of value in the numeric grades, which are supposed to represent relative market values.

Boom · October 6, 2005 6:24AM

The 10 point Mint State system causes enough problems already. Just 10 numbers. No way to a 100 point system.

Shamika · October 6, 2005 6:40AM

I suspect many users fear bringing the wrath of the Forum down upon themselves if the say anything positive about such a change so don't think for a minute all of the board members oppose such a conversion.

Shamika · October 6, 2005 6:41AM

One other thing; people fear change in general so an objective person might keep that in mind.

pharmer · October 6, 2005 7:09AM

<< I suspect many users fear bringing the wrath of the Forum down upon themselves if the say anything positive about such a change so don't think for a minute all of the board members oppose such a conversion. >>

The polls votes are anonymous and have held for 2 days at about 75% against a 100-point system versus 18% for, and it can be equally true that many against it have not "said" anything beyond their vote

DHeath · October 6, 2005 7:51AM

Let's play a game. Say you own a decent 25-S Peace dollar in an old holder graded MS64. The coin looks strong, and is clearly superior to any other MS64 you've seen, but it just isn't clean enough to make 65. You want the holder to increase its saleability, and to make sure your heirs don't sell it to someone who offers UNC bid, or melt, or some other BS number. Would you like the TPG to appraise your coin at $750 (MS64), $20,000 (MS65), or some number in between. Do you really believe the difference between 64 and 65 is so small that it couldn't be broken into a finer scale? If so, is the market manic for paying the 25X premium for the grade point? Would it benefit the buyer and the seller of the coin were called MS64.8, or some number that indicated the coin was above average for the grade? Would you prefer buying that same coin in a 5 holder after it's been resubmitted 20 times? Pick any number system you like, but if the TPG's can't close the gap between $750 and $20,000 for the seller, the holder is worthless. JMO When you or your heirs sell it, would you like all potential buyers to know the coin's PQ for a 4, or would you prefer only the active dealers and crackout guys recognized its true value?

Robgetty · October 6, 2005 7:57AM

I have enough trouble grading on a 60 point scale. I'd be in big trouble trying to differentiate on a 100 point scale.

(And if we were just going to use the same grading scale, but assign a new number that means the same thing, then why bother to change?)

Blade · October 6, 2005 8:30AM

I agree with Solid (near the top of the thread). It would be really helpful if this was used to support quality of the major grading descriptors - strike, luster, surface preservation and eye appeal. I am confident that everyone here looked at a coin and wondered how it received a certain grade. Breaking 1-25, 6-50, 51-75 and 76-100 into separate scales for these factors would give you the answer. But it would (1) open up huge caverns of grading inconsistencies and (2) require that graders enter 4 more numbers in the system, greatly slowing down productivity.

So unless the new scale can communicate something we don't get today, why bother?

D · October 6, 2005 8:30AM

Just actually use the numbers we don't currently use in the 70 point system. IE: AU59. What's hard about that? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to get so technical that you'd use a 100 point scale?

-Daniel

ziggy29 · October 6, 2005 8:36AM

<< Just actually use the numbers we don't currently use in the 70 point system. IE: AU59. What's hard about that? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to get so technical that you'd use a 100 point scale? >>

Maybe. But in this case, I think we need AU-61 and AU-62 more than AU-59. AU-58 already describes a coin that has a trace of wear, but for one reason or another, might not be worth full MS money. At least AU-61 and AU-62 convey that market-based valuation, BUT keep the coin in an AU holder where it belongs.

I realize this starts getting away from strict technical grading and getting into more subjective areas about eye appeal and such, but if the alternative is keeping the status quo and more choice AU coins in MS holders, then bring it on.

LindeDad · October 6, 2005 8:47AM

All I can say is use what ever scale you think is best. But I get FREE reholdering of all of my coins I own before the change. And I think a lot of other people are going to say the same thing.

wjd283 · October 6, 2005 8:58AM

It's been a 70 point system as far back as I can remember,changing it now would only serve to throw any grading knowledge I've acquired into a state of upheavel.
Not to mention I despise change in any form.
Who's going to tell the difference between that high end MS84 and that low end MS85 ?

AAARRGGHHH !!

Baley · October 6, 2005 9:09AM

Let's play a game. Say you own a decent 25-S Peace dollar in an old holder graded MS64. The coin looks strong, and is clearly superior to any other MS64 you've seen, but it just isn't clean enough to make 65. You want the holder to increase its saleability, and to make sure your heirs don't sell it to someone who offers UNC bid, or melt, or some other BS number. Would you like the TPG to appraise your coin at $750 (MS64), $20,000 (MS65), or some number in between. Do you really believe the difference between 64 and 65 is so small that it couldn't be broken into a finer scale? If so, is the market manic for paying the 25X premium for the grade point? Would it benefit the buyer and the seller of the coin were called MS64.8, or some number that indicated the coin was above average for the grade? Would you prefer buying that same coin in a 5 holder after it's been resubmitted 20 times? Pick any number system you like, but if the TPG's can't close the gap between $750 and $20,000 for the seller, the holder is worthless. JMO When you or your heirs sell it, would you like all potential buyers to know the coin's PQ for a 4, or would you prefer only the active dealers and crackout guys recognized its true value?

Exactly, and my favorite example (1925-S peace dollar, because the spread from 64 to 65 is so enormous)
Many coins fit this category where the spread for a single point is so big.

I think most are making a mistake thinking that a "100 point grading scale" has to only include integers from 1 to 100..

A system could also have 100 grading "points" or "positions" if the scale still went from 1 to 70 like it does now, but also allows fractional or decimal points between certain grades, probably in the Uncirculated 60 through 70.

Bear has been a vocal proponent of what DHeath explains here, and I myself have discussed this "spread" issue at length in this old thread

I'd actually support a "100 point system" if the 30 additional grading "points" will be between the 60s numbers, for the coins that merit such scrutiny such as the 25S peace in 64+. Not many people will submit and resubmit a 25P looking for a half point and $30 bucks or whatever, however, many PQ "liner" coins will be submitted for that magic, 64.5 which will add hundreds if not thousands to their 25S.

Doing so will solve a problem in the market, without disrupting the old familiar (if peculiar) 70 point scheme.

While you're at it, go ahead and use VG-9, Fine 18, XF48, and AU62

fcloud · October 6, 2005 9:16AM

With the system we have now there are a lot of complainers. Just wait until we get a different scale, then everyone will something new to complain about.

My vote. 70 points are enough.

1jester · October 6, 2005 9:25AM

<< It must happen! >>

MS100----

bgrice · October 6, 2005 9:33AM

A change is only good if there is some kind of standardized way of grading coins. And that is not going to happen based on that those grades are just opinions of so-called grading experts that put a wide array of different looking coins in the same grade holder each & every day in 10-15 seconds. I do like the idea of the decimal system for the current MS/PR coins in 63 & above. There are some very good examples in every grade and some very poor examples that should not be looked at as equal. And AU-60 thru AU62 is probably a better connotation to what these coins really are.

ILikeDimes · October 6, 2005 9:37AM

can I be the author of the new book........."The MS-70 to MS-100 Ratio Guide" for everyone that refuses to buy into this?

I will NEVER reholder my coins!

pharmer · October 7, 2005 3:04AM

I respectfully disagree that Sheldon's character has a bearing on the debate. To go from discussions of his personal behavior to a suggestion that the grading system should be changed therefore is quite a stretch.

David has mentioned it in this thread and in a q&a response.

BigMoose · October 7, 2005 3:31AM

Even considering expanding the grading scale to 100 points is about the silliest damn thing I have ever heard of, unless, of course, it is being done for the almighty dollar.

RYK · October 7, 2005 3:54AM

As I have responded elsewhere, in theory I do not feel strongly for or against the prospect. It depends on how it is done, how it affects my (non-registry) collection, and how it affects the hobby as a whole. The devil will be in the details.

jmcu12 · October 7, 2005 4:05AM

News flash, the U.S. SHOULD be metric.

KUCH · October 7, 2005 4:18AM

Mr. Hall, don't think we should talk about something else. The points you brought up are important and if an agreement can be reached, that satisfies most customers, then you've got something. As a newbie collector my expertise would come from the business world. Basically when a company brings a new product to market, they DO NOT abandon prior products but continue to support them. If a 100 scale is adopted, there must be support and protection for the old scale for customers who do not wish to regrade. Anything short of this will have serious consequences.

Example 70 point scale - coin x is holdered at MS65 and valued at $xx 100 point scale would cross to a MS92.95 and valued at $xx

To satisfy customers the 100 scale is going to have to use tenths and hundreths. Can you think of a better way?

tmot99 · October 7, 2005 5:15AM

<< Let's play a game. Say you own a decent 25-S Peace dollar in an old holder graded MS64. The coin looks strong, and is clearly superior to any other MS64 you've seen, but it just isn't clean enough to make 65. You want the holder to increase its saleability, and to make sure your heirs don't sell it to someone who offers UNC bid, or melt, or some other BS number. Would you like the TPG to appraise your coin at $750 (MS64), $20,000 (MS65), or some number in between. Do you really believe the difference between 64 and 65 is so small that it couldn't be broken into a finer scale? If so, is the market manic for paying the 25X premium for the grade point? Would it benefit the buyer and the seller of the coin were called MS64.8, or some number that indicated the coin was above average for the grade? Would you prefer buying that same coin in a 5 holder after it's been resubmitted 20 times? Pick any number system you like, but if the TPG's can't close the gap between $750 and $20,000 for the seller, the holder is worthless. JMO When you or your heirs sell it, would you like all potential buyers to know the coin's PQ for a 4, or would you prefer only the active dealers and crackout guys recognized its true value? >>

Actually, yes, the difference between a 64 and 65 is probably small enough that it cannot be easily and consistantly divided. Diong so would in effect be using the star designation that's in use by NGC. It is the market that is determining the price difference between a 64 and 65, not the grade or the TPG. The fact that very few 65s have been certified is just a supply/demand issue and would not change no matter if you use a 1-10 point system, a 1-70 point system, or a 1-100 point system.

Addressing the comments from HRH, thanks for confirmation on your thoughts.

relayer · October 7, 2005 5:19AM

One good aspect of the 100 point system that Bear brought up was it would eliminate the huge price jumps for a 1 point difference.

That alone would make it a good idea!

Barry · October 7, 2005 5:25AM

One good aspect of the 100 point system that Bear brought up was it would eliminate the huge price jumps for a 1 point difference.

Why do you say that? The big price jumps are caused by demand created by number chasers. Number chasers won't go away, so the demand will still exist for the higher numbers. I don't understand how anyone can be in favor of finer grade divisions when the current ones aren't reproducible..

Boom · October 7, 2005 5:51AM

Bearing in mind the huge differences in premiums one point presently makes and with
graders of all sorts (collectors / dealers / professional graders) being unable to agree
as it is already, a 100 point system IMHO, is simply out of the question and would certainly
cause even more upheavel. NO !

We are working with 10 MS pts at present
and there are enough problems already. More numbers=more disagreement.

100 Point Grading Scale

Comments

Leave a Comment