Let's Pretend We Are Presented with a Proposed New 101 Point Scale. Comments.

[poorguy.-migration]

I posted this ATS. What do you think? Comments, suggestions, insults, and brainstorming are wildly encouraged.

 

Total Points: 101

 

Surface Quality (Contact Marks, abrasions, hairlines on proofs, ect.) 20 pts

Strike (obviously different scale value for weakly struck dates. Buffalo nickels come to mind.) 20 pts

Luster (again, different for different types, proof vs. mint state, matte, brilliant, ect.) 20 pts

Originality (This may sway for more points for fugly coins but I certainly consider it when purchasing.) 20 pts

Wear (1-19 from PO-01 up to MS-20) 20 pts

Eye Appeal (This will be an extra point sort of like a star on NGC coins but will actually count towards the grade.) 1 pt

Problem deductions (These would be mentioned problems with a numerical reduction in the grade based on the severity of the problem.) Up to 100% of the total points given.

 

So, a utopian MS65 PCGS 1881-S Morgan with attractive color would be graded as such:

 

Surface Quality: 10 (couple of hits here and there but nothing dramatic and eye catchingly distracting. An MS60 by today's standards with tons of bagmarks would be a 2 while a utopian MS68 would be an 18)

Srike: 19 (damn sharp strike)

Luster: 15 (Quite flashy with a near PL effect) A black and white dmpl would be a 19.

Originality: 15 (dipped and retoned many years ago in an album.)

Wear: 20 (MS60 current coins automatically get 20 points for being mint state) Since MS60-70 differences are detailed in the other qualities. Circ Grades 1-19.

Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive rainbow toning.)

Problem Deductions: -0 No Problems (Always a negative number)

 

Total Score: 80

 

So the coin would grade an 80 on my scale. This method is inefficient for grading large numbers of commodity type coins and requires a mastery of the series in which you are grading so I doubt this method or one like it can feasibly be executed. If anyone wants to start building off of this brainstorm taking into account different scenarios or situations where this scale wouldn't work and making comprimises for these exeptions, I would gladly get together with you on it and help develop something better that I can start to apply to coins in our own inventory just for S&G's.

 

The positive aspect of this scale is that you can see where the points are coming from and buy accordingly. Maybe you dig luster and don't really don't get bothered by little dings here and there. You could search for an example that scored closer to 20 for luster. It would simply detail the aspects of the coin giving both the buyer a better grasp of what to look for and why a coin is special (or not so special), and give the seller specific reasons to praise (or not praise) a coin on it's technical merits.

 

How would you modify it? Can you think of any scenarios where this would NOT work? Feel free to snag some examples you have at home and apply it to the scale.

 

Brainstorming, Comments (Good is good but Bad is better), Additions, Subtractions. Let's hear them all.

 

---------------------------------------------------------Added 12-06-2007-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Regarding the current sheldon scale. I believe that too much is pumped into each grade and that some factors are "cut off" to make the condition "fit" into the sheldon scale.

 

What I propose is that wear is only one part of the condition of the coin and hence, only 20% of the grade. Since there are really only 20 (REAL GRADES in the sheldon scale as illustrated below, why not just number them from 1-20 instead of jumping 5 grades (ex. VF-20 to VF-25). Where the hell is VF-21, 22, 23, and 24? Since they don't matter anyway, just get rid of them.

 

I've mapped out the sheldon scale to my new system as such:

 

P0-01 = 01

AG-02 = 02

AG-03 = 03

G-04 = 04

G-06 = 05

VG-08 = 06

VG-10 = 07

F-12 = 08

F-15 = 09

VF-20 = 10

VF-25 = 11

VF-30 = 12

VF-35 = 13

XF-40 = 14

XF-45 = 15

AU-50 = 16

AU-53 = 17

AU-55 = 18

AU-58 = 19

MS-60 and above = 20

 

So, a grade of a coin could essentially be AU-62. Inversely, a coin could also have the grade of MS-51 or XF-55. This solves the problem of erasing the misconception that MS60 coins are worth more than all AU58's on a general scale.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------Example Added 12-6-2007-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's another example using a coin that is in our archives:

 

Surface Quality: 14 (No major hits, a couple of scuffies on the reverse. No spots, stains, or otherwise major distracting features.)

Strike: 13 (No weak areas, although some weak areas are typical on certiain overtons) but still not nearly as crisp and sharp as it could be.

Luster: 10 (Has some flash in the protected ares but open field areas are typcial AUish with light rubbing detracting from the overall luster score. No surface haze though.)

Originality: 7 (Moderately dipped some time ago and put in an album where it retoned.)

Wear: 19 (AU58 Sheldon = 19)

Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive toning. Yes, it's subjective but it's only 1 point from 100 and not a grade bump like I see handed out today).

Problem Deductions: No problems. (These are primarily problems preventing slabbing by TPG's today. This allows NCS coins to be graded properly as well.)

 

Total Score: AU-64.

 

Note that the 64 is out of a possible 101 on my scale, not a possible 70 like the sheldon scale. Also notice that if the coin were graded MS62 by NGC, it would only get a 1 point bump out of 100. Given that if the surfaces looked exactly the same, but overgraded by a TPG as an MS-62 instead of AU58, it would simply be an MS-65 out of 100 by the new scale. This puts coins of similar quality in the same price range even if the amount of wear is different. I feel this also prevents gross overgrading.

 

 

----------------------------------------------Some Additional Posts From the Thread I Posted-----------------------------------------------

 

Think of it this way. If a collector took 20 minutes (and that's a stretch, shouldn't even need that long after looking at examples), to understand this scale. The odds are pretty slim that they would get screwed since they've learned the most important aspects of grading in general before even considering coins to buy. How much research did you to before you bought your first car? Probably more than 20 minutes worth. Why not take time to understand a more detailed grading scale?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The designations of cameo, deep cameo, prooflike, and deep mirror prooflike would most likely be an extra designation.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wayne Herndon Posted:

 

The fact of the matter is, each individual weights the factors that go into deciding a coin's grade a little different from the other collectors. IMO, the same can be said of grading services. IMO, NGC weights (particularly) surface condition and (somewhat) strike heavier than PCGS and PCGS weighs (particularly) luster and (somewhat) eye appeal heavier than NGC. This is why we are always hearing stories about this not crossing or that crossing at an upgrade. Your scale adds in originality and that does not appear to be rewarded by either service.

 

Diamonds, like coins, are evaluated on four factors. However, unlike coins, the factors going into the evaluation of a diamond are not blended together to form one numerical rating for the gem. Instead, a buyer is aware of how the diamond rated on each parameter and can compromise in one area in order to get a stone that meets his or her important criteria.

 

I like the idea you propose for the reason that it does layout better the individual strengths and weaknesses to the coin. Were we starting over today as wise guys trying to set a grading standard, I'd give serious consideration to such a system that measured each attribute. However, given we're not, and we've been doin' what we've been doin' for so long, we're not likely to change and certainly not in major ways. (Of course you know that and hence the reason you set this up as a philosophical discussion.)

 

Yet, what you suggest is exactly how we behave anyway even without the 4 numbers on the holder. Dealers and auction houses address the relative strengths and weaknesses in their descriptions. When the customer calls on the phone to ask about the coin, his questions are "How's the strike?", "Where are the marks?", etc., especially within in the attribute that is most important to this collector.

 

WH

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The majority of collectors can't grade given the current scale that they understand- could you imagine throwing a new system at them.....

 

Yes, one that points out each characteristic and it's strength or deficit. They will get a better understanding of what to look for when buying coins as well. New collectors would probably grasp this descriptive scale rather than a cryptic (1-70) scale they have to research about to find out what the hell it means. Yes, I get that question at least once a week. "What does MS65 mean?"

 

Most can't grade on a 70 point scale now. How would we grade on a 100 point scale?

 

The PRIMARY reason to change it to something more descriptive. If the scale was clearly defined, it would allow someone to better understand the grade it recieved and therefore enhance that person's ability to grade and know what they want in the future.

 

Say if someone got hammed into buying a 1935-S Texas in NGC MS66 and it just didn't have much luster but they were told that the coin HAD good luster by the dealer. They might not have seen any other texas commems and just went with what the dealer said. When they went to go sell it again, they would be informed that the coin didn't have good luster and probably lose money on it if they paid full retail. Now, if the coin had clear descriptive graded aspects with luster having only a 2 out of possible twenty, they'd have known right off the bat that the coin didn't have good luster. This to me is much better than the Sheldon scale (which is rough for new collectors to get used to, I bet even more than this new descriptive scale that many are saying is too complicated).

 

The point is, people will know what they are getting. Less people initially screwed in coins = more people staying in coins. This is the information age. New generations of collectors want ALL the data we can get about a coin.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Brandon, It is basically the same concept, but i think the collector can understand it better based on the sheldon scale. Also the grading sevices would't have to retrain their graders as the've been trained on the 70 point scale.

 

I don't think, actually from the questions every week I get when I appraise coins, I know that most people that are green to coins and grading do not understand the sheldon scale easily and certainly can't descern between a Nice MS65 and a low-end MS64. With a new descriptive scale, that information would be self explanitory and obvious.

 

About the graders needing to be retrained. That's silly. They go through the rounds on each coin about each aspect that is being described by the new scale anyways and just end up calling it a number in the sheldon scale that coincides with the aspects. With the new scale they will just independently score each aspect and total it at the end.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

you could give it a shot...I know David Lawrence has his own system (though it's far more basic but does take into account eye appeal)

 

I'd be willing to bet strong money that a new descriptive scale would be much more successful and quickly favored over the sheldon scale by Gen-x coin dealers and collectors if it were implemented. It's the Information age you know. The more data, the better. It would also allow people who are afraid to get duped into buying an overgraded coin feel more confident in their purchases by explaining in the grade, what is good or bad about the coin. It's close enough to full disclosure. Good coins would sell for more and crappy coins would sell for less.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cladkings Response to italicized text:

 

The majority of collectors can't grade given the current scale that they understand- could you imagine throwing a new system at them.....

 

It would be far easier to learn the components of grading than to learn

the current system. You already need to know all the components and

then how to rate them.

 

Most people could do their own grading if we graded the components and

then we'd need the services for pricing, authentication, and double check-

ing our grading.

 

Obviously grading classics is more complicated but this is their nature, not

the nature of grading.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Solid posted:

 

While I think the present 1-70 system is arbitrary, it is firmly entrenched and change, even if beneficial, will be fiercely resisted.

 

I do like your reasoning of a more descriptive grade and have even thrown out an idea here on the boards before, which was

soundly rejected!

 

How about something along these lines:

 

1) All circulated coins keep the currently used grades of 1-58.

 

2) Uncirculated coins would start at a baseline of 60, and then each of four factors (strike, luster/mirrors, marks, eye-appeal)

would each be graded on a scale of 1-10 (people are used to using a 1-10 scale for many things).

 

So, your theoretical coin could grade as follows:

 

Uncirculated: 60

Strike: 9

Luster: 7

Surfaces: 5

Eye-Appeal: 7

 

Total grade: 88 (expressed as: 88 9-7-5-7)

 

Ken

 

That's basically what I propose just re-arranged. I like the idea, but I also want to blend the lines separating AU58 and MS60 as I'd rather have an AU58 that's choice than an MS60 that's a dog.

 

That's a good point, and I would want the nice AU over the doggy MS coin as well.

 

My main thought was to work with a 1-10 scale for the grading factors as it is something that people are used to doing anyway.

 

There is no reason AU coins couldn't start at a baseline of 50 with a possible 10 points for each factor (strike, luster, marks, etc).

 

In that case, a really nice AU could (and should) end up with more overall points than the doggy MS coin.

 

If you're doing that, you'd probably need a further designation like AU75 vs MS70.

 

At some point down the scale, I believe the current system works fine, for example XF45 and lower. Sure, there can be a big

difference in eye-appeal between two coins grading XF45, but it is usually readily apparent with just a quick glance. It is the

uncirculated coins (and possibly AU coins) where breaking down the grade into multiple factors would be really helpful.

 

Ken

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Doogy Posted:

 

A good portion of the classic coins that are worth slabbing, are already entombed in plastic. This leaves a couple options for the two top TPGs: lower their prices to encourage people to submit more widgets or bullion, loosen up the grading standards a bit to encourage the crack out artists and collectors, or come up with an alternative grading system that appeals to more folks.

 

The alternative to this would be for the services to keep their grading standards very high, stay with a 'one size fits all' grading scale, and watch their bottom line fall from fewer submissions. Being a publicly traded company and stockholders to please, they won't allow this to happen.

 

Look for the top TPGs to increase their marketing of certain coins with snazzy attributions, "market grading", and overlooking liners. None of these favor the coin collectors looking for strict technical grading based on a coin's merits. However, having an alternative box to check on a grading line would offer someone that wants more info on their coins grade, to get it, as well as a larger scale in which to grade form (perhaps 1-100). The people that are invested in the Sheldon system can simply stick to this if they're happy with it.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

These are all great comments as well as some from other folks that were essentially echoed in the ones I chose to include in this post.

[wayneherndon]

What I propose is that wear is only one part of the condition of the coin and hence, only 20% of the grade. Since there are really only 20 (REAL GRADES in the sheldon scale as illustrated below, why not just number them from 1-20 instead of jumping 5 grades (ex. VF-20 to VF-25). Where the hell is VF-21, 22, 23, and 24? Since they don't matter anyway, just get rid of them.

 

Actually, I like the wider spread between grades. We have sliced unc grades so thin that even the professional graders at the best grading services can't consistently put the same coins in the same category. We need to make the buckets bigger in these grades (like the 3-5 point jumps we have in circ grades).

 

I see this as the main drawback to a 100 or 101 point system. Do we really want/need 100 unique grades? Price guides will continue to select a subset to price. People already have trouble figuring out what to do with the 'tweener" grades. We need less of these rather than more.

 

WH

[James_OldeTowne]

Interesting concept in that I've come up with a very similar alternative grading scale. I also made mine somewhat "backward compatible" with the current 70 point system via a simple conversion formula.

[MarkFeld]

Why not (as some do now) use the current grading scale, but also assign a rating between 1 and 5 for attributes such as strike, color, eye-appeal, marks. etc.? It's less complicated, wouldn't require as much of an overhaul and should provide prospective buyers with similar information.

 

Regardless of what system we use, there will always be considerable subjectivity and differences of opinion involved. That, added to the fact that some people want grading to reflect a coins' state of preservation, while others want it to reflect value, means that there will never be even close to universal acceptance of a so called "grading standard".

[Dcoin]

I think one drawback to this system is that the TPG's would have to spend much more time per coin to grade each of the criteria that you suggested. More time per coin, the higher the grading fee.

 

One big positive for me is that collectors would be able to differentiate between same grade coins. For example… two Morgan’s with the same grade, yet one made its points of luster, while the other received strong marks for clean surfaces. Now you can choose which is important to individual collectors.

 

Good thread!

 

[poorguy.-migration]

Why not (as some do now) use the current grading scale, but also assign a rating between 1 and 5 for attributes such as strike, color, eye-appeal, marks. etc.? It's less complicated, wouldn't require as much of an overhaul and should provide prospective buyers with similar information.

 

Regardless of what system we use, there will always be considerable subjectivity and differences of opinion involved. That, added to the fact that some people want grading to reflect a coins' state of preservation, while others want it to reflect value, means that there will never be even close to universal acceptance of a so called "grading standard".

 

Personally, I think that the new method will combine putting a value on the coin with the condition. The final tally number can be used to quantify a general value while the individual aspect scale will define the quality and state of preservation. I do like your idea though of individually grading the aspects and retaining the sheldon grade as a transitional period between scales though.

 

I'll go on the record as saying the sheldon scale is obsolete. Technically there are 30 total grades. The 19 circulated grades mentioned in the first post and the 60-70 grades in unc. So we are technically on a 30 point grading scale that does not take into consideration everything that needs to be considered when determining the condition and value of the coin.

[poorguy.-migration]

I think one drawback to this system is that the TPG's would have to spend much more time per coin to grade each of the criteria that you suggested. More time per coin, the higher the grading fee.

 

I see where you are coming from but in all fairness, what do they look at now to determine the grade? They really should be looking at every aspect detailed in the new system to come up with the sheldon grade in the first place. Now it'll just be illustrated. Maybe they'll have to spend an extra 2 seconds adding the numbers up but as with all learned skills, it will soon be done just as quick as the old way as soon as it's been repeated enough.

[moovyz]

Good post, I like many of the aspects of what you propose. I don't think it will ever happen, unless the major TPGs agree to use the new system and "re-grade" all current graded coins for free or a very nominal charge.

 

The only real complaint I have with what you have suggested is the 1 point for "eye appeal". There are many coins that I feel would deserve the 1 point but there are many more coins that would individually be vastly superior to another in terms of eye appeal. In other words, Sat I have a nicely toned AU Bust half, that most people agree that it deserves the 1 point "bonus". Compared to the Busty that you showed in your post, it pales in comparison. Your coin gets "penalized" by not getting a bigger bonus for it's incredible "eye appeal" (it's a beauty, BTW!)

 

Now I realize that people will still be able to look at all the other factors that separate the 2 coins, but people will, especially for pricing concerns, just go with the basic "total grade" score. And the fact i, the 2 coins are vastly different in terms of value. Sure, two MS65s, under the current system, could be vastly different in price too, but I see this as a bigger variable in the 100 point system, with only 1 point allowed for "eye appeal".

[Conder101]

There is nothing wrong with the basic idea, it just has the same problem f subjectivity that the current system has. You have given us these neat catagories, and given them point ranges, but have not quantified them.

 

How many marks to go from a 15 to a 14? Size of the marks? Placement? etc.

 

How do you measure luster? Or Strike?

 

Originality? What kind of intruments do you use for that?

 

If your MS-65 morgan from the first example had a coule mor hits but flashier luster would it still be an 80?

[poorguy.-migration]

There is nothing wrong with the basic idea, it just has the same problem f subjectivity that the current system has. You have given us these neat catagories, and given them point ranges, but have not quantified them.

 

How many marks to go from a 15 to a 14? Size of the marks? Placement? etc.

 

How do you measure luster? Or Strike?

 

Originality? What kind of intruments do you use for that?

 

If your MS-65 morgan from the first example had a coule mor hits but flashier luster would it still be an 80?

 

Good thoughts.

 

Regarding quanifying each aspect, I feel that this is why we still need experts to grade coins and that each coin is different in it's own ways. A major characteristic of the system is to cushion the nature of the subjectivity of expert opinions. This new system can easily absorb the current grading standards and I expect it to. Obviously, more heads are better than one and a council of experts will need to decide how to quanitify each characteristic. I'm not going to sit here and say "Exactly 2 marks noticable with a 5x loupe in a focal area creates a ceiling at a 10 out of 20." That needs to be done by a group of experts working together.

 

Regarding originality: I propose that this be the measured by the probability the coin's surfaces have never been altered with on purpose. Yes, this is completely subjective but in the eye of experts who should be doing the grading, they obviously have a darn good understanding of how probable it is that a coin has been messed with.

 

Regarding your reference to my morgan example: Yes, a coin with more hits but better luster could be graded the same. Inversely, a coin with almost no hits and terrible luster could be graded the same as a coin with superb luster and a moderate amount of hits. However, if the surfaces were altered to gain that luster, it looses points again regarding originality.

[TomB]

It's an interesting concept that I think is far too complex for practical usage on commonly encountered coins, as you have stated, but the two examples that you have used are commonly encounted coins. Therefore, I will use another example of a similar, commonly encountered coin. The coin used for comparison will be an 1826 CBH in VF35-

Please note that the coin is raw and that the VF35 grade is my opinion, but also keep in mind that I have been known to dabble a bit in early half dollars so that I might have an idea of the quality of the coin. Using the parameters of your scale I come up with the following-

 

Surface quality-19 points

Strike-12 points

Luster-1 point

Originality-19 points

Wear-13 points

Eye appeal-1 point

Problems-0

 

Total-65 points

 

Obviously, the dates are different (1823 vs. 1826), but they are pretty darn close. Given your total of 64 points for the 1823, does that mean that my total of 65 points for the 1826 makes it a higher graded coin? Additionally, I must point out that circulated coinage, perhaps from VF down, will get hammered for the luster component while strike will become much more difficult to determine as the state of preservation falls. Therefore, my values of 12 for strike and 1 for luster might be debated, which brings more subjectivity to the grading process.

 

As currently stated, unless one were to know the point total for each component grade, one would have no idea of either what the coin looks like or if valued attributes are present.

 

 

 

 

[poorguy.-migration]

It's an interesting concept that I think is far too complex for practical usage on commonly encountered coins, as you have stated, but the two examples that you have used are commonly encounted coins. Therefore, I will use another example of a similar, commonly encountered coin. The coin used for comparison will be an 1826 CBH in VF35-

Please note that the coin is raw and that the VF35 grade is my opinion, but also keep in mind that I have been known to dabble a bit in early half dollars so that I might have an idea of the quality of the coin. Using the parameters of your scale I come up with the following-

 

Surface quality-19 points

Strike-12 points

Luster-1 point

Originality-19 points

Wear-13 points

Eye appeal-1 point

Problems-0

 

Total-65 points

 

Obviously, the dates are different (1823 vs. 1826), but they are pretty darn close. Given your total of 64 points for the 1823, does that mean that my total of 65 points for the 1826 makes it a higher graded coin? Additionally, I must point out that circulated coinage, perhaps from VF down, will get hammered for the luster component while strike will become much more difficult to determine as the state of preservation falls. Therefore, my values of 12 for strike and 1 for luster might be debated, which brings more subjectivity to the grading process.

 

As currently stated, unless one were to know the point total for each component grade, one would have no idea of either what the coin looks like or if valued attributes are present.

 

 

 

 

I would call the surface quality a 10 on that coin since the wear really does have an effect on the quality of the surface overall. Which means that it's sort of double counted against. Maybe a cap of 10 for coins currently XF and under would be a suitable fix.

 

I'm not saying this system is perfect (yet). This is the entire reason for sharing it for open debate and brainstorming. Tom, your post was very insightful and is EXACTLY what I was hoping for when I started the thread. If we all get together and share our thoughts on how to tweak and change this system, I'm sure we'll end up with something better than what we currently have.

 

Why don't some other people post coins to run this system through, especially finding the hardest to grade coins so we can see through example what changes need to be made.

[IGWT]

Why don't some other people post coins to run this system through, especially finding the hardest to grade coins so we can see through example what changes need to be made.

This could be interesting. Here are three coins of the same year, each a different variety of reverse hub IIb, with different qualities that might appeal to different collectors. How would you grade each of the following coins under your system?

 

Images deleted to save otherwise wasted bandwidth.

[CHABSENTIA]

I mentioned tongue in cheek some time ago in relation to Solidity of Grade that there could be a 65.1 or 65.5 etc.You are correct when you state that there will never be close to a universal acceptance of a grading standard.

 

This is because different people see things in a different light based on their own experiences When I went into my next area which is Morgans I had to learn about VAMS and ask questions about them as well as other areas of the Morgans. When I am finished here for the most part then I have every Proof set from 1968 to present and every Mint set from 1970 to the present. I will have to learn about them such as possible errors etc. If I am still around I have a few tubes of Roosevelt and Mercury dimes so I will have ot learn about them.

 

Unless People are have been confined to one area for a long period of time there is no way that they can recognize the attributes of all coins in a short time.They might have an eye for Luster,Strike etc.In the case of Bag marks who determines how many affect the grading of a coin and to what grade.

 

It would seem to me that having 30 or more different attributes for coins would not only cost more due to extra time but would confuse the issue.

 

How would you grade a Morgan that is over 100 years old and has a chance for more wear than a 1986 American Silver Eagle. What priority would be given to an 1895 Morgan in XF as opposed to a 1989 A,S,E in MS69 if they both had a grade of 88 etc.?

[TomB]

It appears that there would be a strong bias in your system for coins currently graded 50 and higher. I write this because of my previous comments regarding the difficulty in determining accurately the strike characteristics as a coin gets further along in wear and also because of the built-in hit regarding luster on coins that are VF or lower, and oftentimes EF or lower. Additionally, if you determine to cap the contribution allowed for surfaces on a coin lower than EF then you are attempting in a fairly blatant manner to rig the system to reward coins that would currently grade 50 or above via a double-hit (surface and wear).

 

Your original definition of surface quality included contact marks, hairlines and abrasions and these impairments are easily seen on circulated coinage, therefore, a truly choice VF35 like the CBH shown should not have a limit of 10 points out of 20 because the detail that has been worn away is due to wear and not damage to the surface. Of course, if you were to give a severe hit for dipped coinage then the AU58 CBH might earn only 3-4 points for surface quality since its surfaces have been burnt and stripped of all originality. The market, of course, loves this obviously and likely repeatedly manipulated look and rewards folks who sell this coinage with handsome prices. The grade, however, does not need to mimic the market.

 

It might actually be a good idea to limit your preliminary analysis and work to AU50 or PF50 and above coinage for these reasons.

[IGWT]

It appears that there would be a strong bias in your system for coins currently graded 50 and higher.

I think that's right, and it's likely a carryover from the current grading system in which the attributes of a coin that are important for grading a new coin drop from the analysis when grading a circulated coin.

 

The grade, however, does not need to mimic the market.

A grading system needs to reflect the market to some degree; otherwise, it won't make sense to a lot of people and most likely won't be accepted. I suppose, however, that it's possible to nudge the market in one direction or another.

 

Someone across the street (okbustchaser?) posted a thread with the words "'gem' circulated" in the title. That made a lot of sense to me. Some circulated coins are just so nice for what they are that they deserve a high grade. Perhaps we can work with the idea that there is a theoretical "perfect" coin for each level of wear, and we can rate that coin a 5. So, as an example, we can have the grades VF-1 through VF-5. Or, as another example, we can have the grades MS-1 through MS-5.

 

I haven't really thought this through, and I'm typing as I'm thinking, but it seems to me that a grading system like this would be a bit more stable and user friendly. Unlike the current grading system, this system doesn't imply that all MS coins are better than all AU coins (or VF or EF coins, for that matter). The market could easily place greater value on an AU-5 than on an MS-1.

[cpm9ball]

The grade, however, does not need to mimic the market.

 

Tom, do you think it would be better, no matter what grading scale is used, if the TPGS' graded coins totally without consideration for the market? Wouldn't this encourage them to grade coins fairly and accurately based solely on the condition and/or attributes?

 

Chris

[Conder101]

A solid unchanging grading standard would act as negative feedback to the marketplace, which by its very nature fluctuates. A changing grading standard that tries to adapt to the market will provide a positive feedback which can eventually force the market into oscillations, creating wild swings and eventual collapse. In the long run you are better off with a standard that does not try and take the market into account.