Changes Coming From a Third-Party Grader?

[notabene-migration]

There's a good discussion across the street, discussing an interesting email that got sent out today by one of the other third-party grading companies about changes they are considering and soliciting feedback. Most of the proposals are welcome news, in my view, (some NGC already does, others it would do well to adopt too) though one of the proposals might put us on a slippery slope to fractional grading that I wouldn't want to see. Check it out. It looks like someone has been listening to their customers. I hope NGC does the same.

[carson city]

Fractional grading---is that something like second-guessing CAC stickering ?

[MAULEMALL]

There's a good discussion across the street, discussing an interesting email that got sent out today by one of the other third-party grading companies about changes they are considering and soliciting feedback. Most of the proposals are welcome news, in my view, (some NGC already does, others it would do well to adopt too) though one of the proposals might put us on a slippery slope to fractional grading that I wouldn't want to see. Check it out. It looks like someone has been listening to their customers. I hope NGC does the same.

All the things they are disscussing NGC has done for quite some time...

 

catch up is for hot dogs and hamburgers.. (thumbs u

[harvey8542]

I feel all of these changes would be a great thing IMO

[notabene-migration]

Maybe carson_city was joking, but by "fractional grading" I mean their last suggestion about having a + designation that is sort of like NGC's star.

 

My point was that I would strongly disagree that 30-50% of the coins in a grade are "high-end" for the grade. If this is implemented it should be reserved for the top 10% of a grade--those that are so close to the next grade but something small is holding them back (or those coins that are just fantastic exemplars of the grade). If half the coins in the grade get a + then you've basically instituted a half-point grading system and there's plenty of numbers between 1 and 70 already. Numismatics doesn't need a 65.5 grade. It could do well with a 65+ if that meant it was one of the top 10% in that grade. You could even be rigid about that 10% number and require photographs of anything receiving a + and then when a new coin is being considered for a + it would only be eligible if fewer than 10% of the coins currently graded by your service in that grade had the + designation and it looked as good or better than the ones photographed on file. This rigidity might mean some worthy coins wouldn't get a + but you could also notify the submitter of this issue and once a few more regular coins of that grade came in the submitter could be informed and could re-submit for + designation.

 

[MarkFeld]

Maybe carson_city was joking, but by "fractional grading" I mean their last suggestion about having a + designation that is sort of like NGC's star.

As I understand it, NGC's star designation is meant to signify extra or special eye appeal, not superior/+ quality for the assigned grade.

[physics-fan3.14]

Perhaps each eligible non-PCGS coin could carry a PCGS

holographic approval sticker.

 

This was one of the things I thought funniest. Trying to pre-empt a certain group, are we?

 

PREMIUM-QUALITY IDENTIFIERS. Should PCGS identify coins that are

high-end for the grade? It is a marketplace reality that coins are

graded on a continuum, and that not all coins assigned the same numerical

grade are of the exact same quality. ... We envision the high end to be 30% to 50% of the coins we grade.

 

Shouldn't the high end be 33% or so? I mean: low, middle, high. Or is the 50% just more gradeflation?

 

I do like the video comments idea, although I can just see some jokers getting comments on all their PR70 modern widgets.

[MarkFeld]

Perhaps each eligible non-PCGS coin could carry a PCGS

holographic approval sticker.

 

This was one of the things I thought funniest. Trying to pre-empt a certain group, are we?

 

PREMIUM-QUALITY IDENTIFIERS. Should PCGS identify coins that are

high-end for the grade? It is a marketplace reality that coins are

graded on a continuum, and that not all coins assigned the same numerical

grade are of the exact same quality. ... We envision the high end to be 30% to 50% of the coins we grade.

 

Shouldn't the high end be 33% or so? I mean: low, middle, high. Or is the 50% just more gradeflation?

 

I do like the video comments idea, although I can just see some jokers getting comments on all their PR70 modern widgets.

Realistically, I think that in many cases the % of high-end coins would be far less than 33% (or 30% to 50%). That's because a large % of the ones that start out that way get resubmitted and over time there end up being considerably more low end or average coins at a given grade.

[Tradedollarnut]

I pushed hard for PCGS to allow other coins on the Registry with a 'Registry Sticker' grade 4 or 5 years ago. At the time they stated no way. I'm happy to see them reconsider.

 

A truly top tier classic set simply cannot be realistically created in only one company's holders without making significant compromises in quality or subjecting oneself to losing large amounts of money by downgrade crossing.

[Scarsdale Coin]

"Trying to pre-empt a certain group, are we?"

 

 

sure sounds that way Mark

[MarkFeld]

"Trying to pre-empt a certain group, are we?"

 

 

sure sounds that way Mark

Jon, it might just be a coincidence.