Should we get rid of grade prefixes?

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:18AM

It seems like there is some issue with XF vs AU and AU vs MS.

Would it be better if we simply got rid of XF/AU/MS and switched to using numbers only?

We could use something for Business Strike. I don't think BS or BU are great as they both have other connotations but let's take BU.

We could have BU-1 to BU-70 just like we have PR-1 to PR-70.

JoeLewis · February 24, 2008 4:21AM

it would be nice

BECOKA · February 24, 2008 4:23AM

Would not bother me. Although I still think we need to separate circulated from MS.

Mercury10c · February 24, 2008 4:23AM

That wouldn't make anything better. How confusing would BU-4 be? Might as well just leave
it at G-4.

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:25AM

<< That wouldn't make anything better. How confusing would BU-4 be? Might as well just leave it at G-4. >>

It would eliminate the AU58 > MS62 debate. I think people would accept a coin with a rub being Businss Strike 62 more than Mint State 62.

commoncents05 · February 24, 2008 4:27AM

BU means Brilliant Uncirculated. This can't apply to a G-4 coin. I think BS would make more sense for Business Strike. You compare it to PR-XX because of the method of manufacture, so BS would make sense in that regard as well.

-Paul

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:28AM

<< BU means Brilliant Uncirculated. This can't apply to a G-4 coin. I think BS would make more sense for Business Strike. You compare it to PR-XX because of the method of manufacture, so BS would make sense in that regard as well. >>

Yeah, I mentioned I don't think BU or BS are great. BS means bullsh*t so I didn't want to use that as the example

Maybe BUS-4 or something.

RWB · February 24, 2008 4:28AM

What's the "issue" with BU and AU? One has no wear and the other has wear. As for EF and AU, that's a matter of education on commonly accepted interpretations. Using only numbers serves simply to further confuse and obfuscate.

Maybe the trend should be the other way – get rid of the numbers. They imply a precision and standardization that does not exist, and that makes them inherently false.

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:31AM

<< What's the "issue" with BU and AU? One has no wear and the other has wear. As for EF and AU, that's a matter of education on commonly accepted interpretations. Using only numbers serves simply to further confuse and obfuscate.

Maybe the trend should be the other way – get rid of the numbers. They imply a precision and standardization that does not exist, and that makes them inherently false. >>

The issue is that it's becoming commonly accepted to call coins with wear "Mint State" by the TPGs and possibly even the ANA. I believe the ANA's grading guide example for market grading used MS64 to MS65 but it is more common to discuss AU58 to MS62 on these boards. The problem is that the term "Mint State" implies no circulation / wear so some people will always have a problem calling a coin with wear "Mint State" but that is where the market seems to be going.

planetsteve · February 24, 2008 4:31AM

<< 

<< That wouldn't make anything better. How confusing would BU-4 be? Might as well just leave it at G-4. >>

It would eliminate the AU58 > MS62 debate. I think people would accept a coin with a rub being BU-62 more than MS-62. >>

Given the above I think the simple answer would be B01 -- B70 for business strikes and P01 -- P70 for proofs. Satin strikes or burnished blanks could pick up another letter.

After all, there's no word that can describe both pristine coins and those affected by friction suffered during minting and packging, right? Calling an unc coin 58 because of some rub on an eagle's or Liberty's breast while the rest of the surfaces are unscathed is a bit unfair. And when those coins are graded above 60, there's a storm of protest.

Mercury10c · February 24, 2008 4:33AM

<< What's the "issue" with BU and AU? One has no wear and the other has wear. As for EF and AU, that's a matter of education on commonly accepted interpretations. Using only numbers serves simply to further confuse and obfuscate. >>

I agree with RWB. Using a BS or BU prefix doesn't improve anything. If you want to change the grading system, make a change that is an IMPROVEMENT, not merely a CHANGE. Is anyone here confused about the difference between XF and AU?

RWB · February 24, 2008 4:46AM

Sorry folks, but how far down does one "dumb" something until it loses its remaining value?

To call a coin that has wear "uncirculated" is a long step down the Orwellian path of New Speak.

Collectors that are too lazy, self-possessed or thought-challenged to educate themselves on the difference between a coin that has not been circulated and one that has, should really go into a hobby they can comprehend -- possibly Beanie Babies or saving cat poop.

Such degradation might be the logical outcome of a hobby that has become pathologically dependent on so-called independent grading companies. (They were originally intended to authenticate, first, then grade.)

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:47AM

<< Is anyone here confused about the difference between XF and AU? >>

I'm confused.

The PCGS Lingo page says AU means uncirculated on first glance but slight friction / rub can be seen upon closer inspection.

Other people seem to be saying that luster should be used for the definition.

Is it friction / rub or luster?

Also, what about "stacking friction"?

speety · February 24, 2008 4:48AM

I believe TDN brought this up and argued for it about a year or so ago. For most grades and series there is a distinction between most prefixes, however almost any series carries substantial debate over the high-AU/low-MS levels. It's obvious that many times an AU-55/8 will look as good if not better than most MS-61/2/3 coins. So for this grade level, it may be useful, especially since light rub is often overlooked by TPGs if the coin is a screamer with a nice look and luster to it.

ricko · February 24, 2008 4:54AM

".....possibly Beanie Babies or saving cat poop."

Good one RWB.... and I totally agree with the rest of the post. Cheers, RickO

Zoins · February 24, 2008 4:57AM

<< To call a coin that has wear "uncirculated" is a long step down the Orwellian path of New Speak. >>

I think that's happening to the hobby given some grading practices and even the recognition of market grading by the ANA.

In my view, the ANA is tacitly approving of market grading to call coins with wear Mint State through their recognition of and lack of disapproval regarding Market Grading.

With both TPGs and the ANA on board with Market Grading, do we have New Speak already?

coinkat · February 24, 2008 5:01AM

good question... but no

PerryHall · February 24, 2008 7:33AM

I vote no. If you got rid of it, most people would continue using it anyway.

tahoe98 · February 24, 2008 7:51AM

<< 

<< Is anyone here confused about the difference between XF and AU? >>

I'm confused.

The PCGS Lingo page says AU means uncirculated on first glance but slight friction / rub can be seen upon closer inspection.

Other people seem to be saying that luster should be used for the definition.

Is it friction / rub or luster?

Also, what about "stacking friction"? >>

and cabinet friction?

Griv · February 24, 2008 7:58AM

What is wrong with MS 1-70 and PR 1-70???

PerryHall · February 24, 2008 8:00AM

<< What is wrong with MS 1-70 and PR 1-70??? >>

Because 1-59 ain't Mint State.

Zoins · February 24, 2008 8:05AM

<< 

<< What is wrong with MS 1-70 and PR 1-70??? >>

Because 1-59 ain't Mint State. >>

Make that 1-63

Griv · February 24, 2008 8:05AM

A technicality of sorts.

sweetwilliet · February 24, 2008 8:33AM

I kind of like it the way it is, it doesn't seem confusing to me at all, unless I'm so confused I don't realize I'm confused. I know it's not consistent between the proof prefix, method of manufacture, and the business strike prefixes denoting wear/details, but we all know what they mean.

PerryHall · February 24, 2008 9:21AM

<< 

<< 

<< What is wrong with MS 1-70 and PR 1-70??? >>

Because 1-59 ain't Mint State. >>

Make that 1-63

>>

Unfortunately, this is true in many cases. Of course, if you are market grading..............

droopyd · February 24, 2008 10:43AM

<< BS means bullsh*t so I didn't want to use that as the example >>

It took 7 posters to get to that conclusion....

LincolnCentMan · February 24, 2008 10:46AM

I can see it now.

1857 Flying Eagle 45
1909-S VDB 50
1913-S T2 Buffalo 58

So some dude says he'll take the lot at the ask price of 153...

-David

Should we get rid of grade prefixes?

Comments

Leave a Comment