Hoot is brilliant: We don't grade coins based on true "standards."

[IGWT]

Instead, we grade coins by convention. EOM.

 

Edited to add: Well, not quite EOM. Feel free to disagree with the first assertion in the title even if you agree with the second. Now EOM.

[MikeKing]

I can't disagree that HOOT is brilliant, but what is EOM?

[MorganMan]

EOM - End of Message

[MarkFeld]

Instead, we grade coins by convention. EOM.

 

Edited to add: Well, not quite EOM. Feel free to disagree with the first assertion in the title even if you agree with the second. Now EOM.

Lou, are you saying it's a given that "convention" is different from "standards"? Are not the standards based upon convention?

[physics-fan3.14]

Where did Hoot say this? Link to an article maybe? Without really knowing what he is talking about it is hard to discuss.

 

However, just based on the one phrase, I would tend to agree. TPGs openly practice market grading, which is grading based on how much the market thinks it's worth. There is no standard, it is just arbitrary.

 

Lou, are you saying it's a given that "convention" is different from "standards"? Are not the standards based upon convention?

 

I would say that the standards were based on convention at the time when whatever standard you want to appeal to was codified, be that ANA or whatever. However, things have continued to evolve - the conventions continued to change and people just kind of ignored the standards for the most part. This is all just IMO, of course.

[IGWT]

Where did Hoot say this? Link to an article maybe? Without really knowing what he is talking about it is hard to discuss.

 

Hoot's observation was part of his contribution to Tom's CAC thread:

 

Yes, excellent post Tom. I'd also agree with James, and add that CAC, in its very conception, could only appeal to a small population of coin collectors. Coin collectors, as a whole, are much more diverse than the folks who hang out on coin boards, attend major shows, involve themselves in a numismatic specialty, or center themselves in the antiquarianism of numismatics. The popultion is largely comprised of people who buy coins quite ignorantly (often haphazardly), and more than anything, want to believe their coins are nice, PQ, great, pretty, excellent, valuable, etc., etc., no matter what the small nucleus in the center of numismatics thinks. And belief is the single most potent motivation of those who are determined, no matter what their intentions may be. Moreover, accepted conventions (as "strandards" does not apply) of modern grading have a history that walks hand-in-hand with the populace. Consequently, the CAC cannot speak widely to the populace or swim against their mighty current.

 

[MarkFeld]

Where did Hoot say this? Link to an article maybe? Without really knowing what he is talking about it is hard to discuss.

 

However, just based on the one phrase, I would tend to agree. TPGs openly practice market grading, which is grading based on how much the market thinks it's worth. There is no standard, it is just arbitrary.

 

Lou, are you saying it's a given that "convention" is different from "standards"? Are not the standards based upon convention?

 

I would say that the standards were based on convention at the time when whatever standard you want to appeal to was codified, be that ANA or whatever. However, things have continued to evolve - the conventions continued to change and people just kind of ignored the standards for the most part. This is all just IMO, of course.

So, do I correctly understand you to be saying that, based upon present convention, we're continually re codifying the standards that, at the time they were set, were based upon convention? If so, I won't argue. If not, I am admittedly at least a little confused.

[IGWT]

Lou, are you saying it's a given that "convention" is different from "standards"? Are not the standards based upon convention?

 

Standards accepted by convention are no more fixed than convention itself. One has to stand pretty far back from the issue to see the whole picture.

[MarkFeld]

Standards accepted by convention are no more fixed than convention itself

I agree. Do you believe that (the tail of the) major grading companies wags (the dog of) convention?

[physics-fan3.14]

So, do I correctly understand you to be saying that, based upon present convention, we're continually re codifying the standards that, at the time they were set, were based upon convention? If so, I won't argue. If not, I am admittedly at least a little confused.

 

Yes, Mark, that's exactly what I am saying.

[MarkFeld]

So, do I correctly understand you to be saying that, based upon present convention, we're continually re codifying the standards that, at the time they were set, were based upon convention? If so, I won't argue. If not, I am admittedly at least a little confused.

 

Yes, Mark, that's exactly what I am saying.

Thanks. I do agree with you and I'm relieved to know I'm not confused, at least on this matter.

 

Curiously, then, what would your answer be to the question I asked Lou?:

 

Do you believe that (the tail of the) major grading companies wags (the dog of) convention?

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Do you believe that (the tail of the) major grading companies wags (the dog of) convention?

 

Definitely. In the beginning, the TPGs were following the standards of their time. But now, the TPGs define grading conventions. Everyone is concerned with the grade on the plastic, or what grade they would get if they submitted. Thus, people are trying to grade according to what the TPGs would give them. It is cyclical - people graded a certain way, so the TPGs moved in a certain direction. When people saw that the TPGs were moving that way, people moved a little farther. And so on. When the TPGs change direction (either getting tighter or looser), people are forced to follow suit. Thus things bounce back and forth within a certain range, a 64 today might be a 63 tomorrow and a 65 the next day.

[cladking]

Obviously the title is accurate and understates reality.

 

We net grade because collectors don't want to know the condition of their coins, they want to know the value. They can look up a net grade and see what the current market value is but they would have to have some knowledge to use a price guide that involved the real grade of a coin.

 

The hobby is forever in a state of flux as collectors change and the rest mature. There is always a change in expectations for the various grades and the slabbers have to tweek their grading often or lose touch with the market.

 

Look at the thread on the parameters collectors find important from just the other day. How do you please all these different perspectives? How do you define "eye appeal"? There can be no standards until collectors desire to have standards. Even then grading can never be an exact science but when you see the grade of a coin you'll have a great deal of insight into what it looks like. And you'll need to know something about coins to look up the value.

[MAULEMALL]

We net grade because collectors don't want to know the condition of their coins, they want to know the value. They can look up a net grade and see what the current market value is but they would have to have some knowledge to use a price guide that involved the real grade of a coin.

 

 

 

That part of CK's post says it all...

Well stated

[TomB]

Obviously, Hoot is brilliant, but what is the remainder of that popular board phrase? hm Oh yes, Hoot must die!!! (thumbs u

[Hoot]

what is the remainder of that popular board phrase? hm Oh yes, Hoot must die!!! (thumbs u

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I feel relieved, now.

 

Hoot

[RWB]

Were there true standards, assigned states of preservation would be consistent and the grading companies would soon run out of non-modern coins to grade. A MS-65 1910 eagle graded in 1989 would still be a MS-65 in 2009; stickers would be unthinkable and crackout people would be just “cracked.”

 

Maybe the mint should do it’s own grading for modern commemoratives and coin sets; or contract with a TPG for the service. We could go back to “Selectors” but for a different, much more profitable purpose.

 

 

(PS: Much agreed on the Hoot is brilliant part!!)

[skippy]

The thing that's so nice about standards is that there are so many to choose from. :-)

 

I would argue that the coin grading standards are not really standards - they are pseudo-standards at best. Standards are something that should be consistently measurable and consistently produce the same results each time you measure. By that standard (ahem!) coin standards fail miserably.

 

Whether you call what we do "grading by standard" or "grading by convention" or "grading by which side of the bed you got up from", it's all just a label that in the end doesn't matter.

 

What is dangerous is the presumption that the phrase "grading by standards" implies the precision with which true standards are usually applied.

 

[IGWT]

Obviously, Hoot is brialliant, but what is the remainder of that popular board phrase? hm Oh yes, Hoot must die!!! (thumbs u

I forgot that part. Thanks for picking up the slack!

[MikeInFL]

Hoot (or anyone else!),

 

Interesting thought.... Not sure if I agree or disagree. Here are three, admittedly loaded, questions to ponder:

 

Do you think EAC grading is based on true "standards"?

 

Do you think there is any room for the subjective in true "standards"?

 

Is there any room for error (i.e. tolerances) in true "standards"?

 

Just wondering...Mike

[IGWT]

Whether you call what we do "grading by standard" or "grading by convention" or "grading by which side of the bed you got up from", it's all just a label that in the end doesn't matter.

But at least the term "convention" is a more precise description of the process.

[IGWT]

Hoot (or anyone else!),

 

Interesting thought.... Not sure if I agree or disagree. Here are three, admittedly loaded, questions to ponder:

 

Do you think EAC grading is based on true "standards"?

 

Do you think there is any room for the subjective in true "standards"?

 

Is there any room for error (i.e. tolerances) in true "standards"?

 

Just wondering...Mike

A grade is nothing more than a way to describe the objective reality of a coin's condition (whether in absolute or relative terms). We misuse the word "subjective" when we use it to explain away different grades assigned to the same coin by different people or even to excuse our own inconsistency. Those variations are attributable to many factors, e.g., imprecise standards, changing standards, an imperfect understanding of standards, or even different standards altogether. But none of those reasons are truly "subjective" in nature.

[MarkFeld]

Hoot (or anyone else!),

 

Interesting thought.... Not sure if I agree or disagree. Here are three, admittedly loaded, questions to ponder:

 

Do you think EAC grading is based on true "standards"?

 

Do you think there is any room for the subjective in true "standards"?

 

Is there any room for error (i.e. tolerances) in true "standards"?

 

Just wondering...Mike

A grade is nothing more than a way to describe the objective reality of a coin's condition (whether in absolute or relative terms). We misuse the word "subjective" when we use it to explain away different grades assigned to the same coin by different people or even to excuse our own inconsistency. Those variations are attributable to many factors, e.g., imprecise standards, changing standards, an imperfect understanding of standards, or even different standards altogether. But none of those reasons are truly "subjective" in nature.

But eye-appeal IS "subjective" and it is supposedly part of what a coin's grade is based upon.

[IGWT]

But eye-appeal IS "subjective" and it is supposedly part of what a coin's grade is based upon.

 

As has been discussed elsewhere, I tend to think that eye appeal is largely the net result of surface condition, strike, and luster. To the extent that it's something else -- say, beauty -- then you're right, it's subjective. And, if grading is truly subjective in whole or in part, then everybody's so-called grade would be correct. A coin could be both a 60 and a 69 at the same time.

[MarkFeld]

But eye-appeal IS "subjective" and it is supposedly part of what a coin's grade is based upon.

 

As has been discussed elsewhere, I tend to think that eye appeal is largely the net result of surface condition, strike, and luster. To the extent that it's something else -- say, beauty -- then you're right, it's subjective. And, if grading is truly subjective in whole or in part, then everybody's so-called grade would be correct. A coin could be both a 60 and a 69 at the same time.

The eye-appeal component of a coin's grade is subjective. But, much of the rest (such as strike, surface marks, luster, etc.) isn't, or at least shouldn't be (too) subjective. Therefore the grading of coins is partly objective and partly subjective. And, while the subjectivity factor can legitimately account for differences in grade, it can't reasonably account for differences as great as between a 60 and a 69, for example. Please don't ask me what differences can reasonably be accounted for - that's the hard part.

[IGWT]

And, while the subjectivity factor can legitimately account for differences in grade, it can't reasonably account for differences as great as between a 60 and a 69, for example.

Says who? The essence of subjectivity is that one person's view is no more or less valid than another's view. And, in any event, a mere one or two point difference based on a purely subjective criterion -- which you seem to accept as "legitimate" -- can mean a 100% difference (or more) in value.

[MarkFeld]

And, while the subjectivity factor can legitimately account for differences in grade, it can't reasonably account for differences as great as between a 60 and a 69, for example.

Says who? The essence of subjectivity is that one person's view is no more or less valid than another's view. And, in any event, a mere one or two point difference based on a purely subjective criterion -- which you seem to accept as "legitimate" -- can mean a 100% difference (or more) in value.

Says anyone who agrees that eye-appeal is only one factor in a coin's grade? If a coin has obvious wear, eye-appeal can't legitimately bring its grade up to 60 or higher. And if a coin has enough contact marks so that on an objective/technical basis and absent eye-appeal it would grade MS60 or MS61, eye-appeal can't legitimately bump it up to an MS64 or higher, for example.

[IGWT]

If a coin has obvious wear, eye-appeal can't legitimately bring its grade up to 60 or higher.

 

That's a hanging curve ball.

[MarkFeld]

If a coin has obvious wear, eye-appeal can't legitimately bring its grade up to 60 or higher.

 

That's a hanging curve ball.

I disagree, as I included the word "legitimately". An AU or lower grade coin which is incredibly eye-appealing doesn't legitimately become uncirculated.... even if it is graded that way in order to place a value on it.

 

 

[IGWT]

If a coin has obvious wear, eye-appeal can't legitimately bring its grade up to 60 or higher.

 

That's a hanging curve ball.

I disagree, as I included the word "legitimately". An AU or lower grade coin which is incredibly eye-appealing doesn't legitimately become uncirculated.... even if it is graded that way in order to place a value on it.

Uncirculated doesn't really mean uncirculated, of course (a good percentage of MS coins -- even true gems -- saw some circulation); and a 62 or 63 can show evidence of wear from circulation. It's a matter of convention, not standards, and it's "legitimate" on those grounds. Otherwise, there's a whole lot of "illegitimate" grading going on by the best of the best professional graders.

 

There, we've closed the circle.