What is your opinion of market grading?

[Wihlborg]

Within the last week there have been two posts to the board where there was discussion as to whither or not the coins in the posts deserved the grades assigned to them. One post was about a toned Jefferson nickel, a PCGS pop one coin, and the other post was about a rare date St. Gaudens $20. In both cases the consensus seems to have been that the coins were market graded and did not deserve the grades that were assigned to them.

 

My question is what is your opinion of market grading? Do you agree that coins should be market graded or should the grading companies grade a coin on its technical merits?

 

If two coins of the same date and mint have the same technical grade due to marks, but one is nicely toned should that coin get a 2 to 3 point boost in its grade over the untoned coin? Remember, if the toned coin were untoned it would be no better than the other coin.

 

The same goes for a rare date compared to a common date in the same series. If both coins are equal in their technical grade, should the rarer coin have its grade bumped up a few points for nothing other than the fact that it is rarer?

 

What effect does market grading have on the registry? After all would it be fair if a top set in the registry were comprised of mostly market graded coins that are in actuality inferior technically to a set ranked below it?

 

Personally, I am not a fan of market grading and believe a coin should be graded on its technical merits. How can market grading ever possibly lead to confidence in the ability of the grading companies to grade consistently if most collectors seem to consider market graded coins to be overgraded? Now I know that eye appeal is part of a coins grade, and some will say that is the reason a nicely toned coin should get a bump in its grade, but I disagree. A untoned coin can have just as much eye appeal as a toned one, and toning is and always will be subjective, two people can look at the same toned coin and see two completely different things. One may see beautiful color while the other sees tarnish. I believe that today’s collectors are smart enough to realize that they will have to pay more for a rare date or colorfully toned coin or they will not be able to acquire one. I say leave it up to the market to decide what if any premium a coin should command above its technical grade for color or rarity.

 

What do you think?

 

John

[GDJMSP]

What I think is that you are correct.

[jom]

This is a very tough question but a good one. And it takes some explaining to give my POV on this.

 

1) I believe the BUYER and the SELLER should decide on the price of a coin, i.e. Let the market decide.

 

2) I believe there are too many MS grades. Again, let the market decide the "in-betweens". At least make an effort to have LESS as possible so that the market can decide something. Say, getting rid of strike designation or color attributes and the like.

 

3) All that is really needed from the TPG is authenticity and some filtering out of the cleaned and repaired pieces.

 

If you use THIS as a beginnning guidline for grading you could develop a good system. A system of communication that is, since that is really what grade is for, right? A way to communicate what a coin looks like to someone who can't see it.

 

Given the above, I think a technical grading system is best. And if the coin merits a high price tag the MARKET will decide that, no?

 

I believe that today’s collectors are smart enough to realize that they will have to pay more for a rare date or colorfully toned coin or they will not be able to acquire one.

 

Exactly but...

 

PROBLEM: The present system uses the "everyone is a dumb-arse" approach. Supposedly it is to protect the "unwary" from crooks. But it is also set up for and by dealers to their advantage. This keeps the market we have driven by the "grade" posted rather than a true market where buyer and seller must decide. The TPG company's rule the roost and I don't see the system we have changing anytime soon. The "unwary" still get screwed and the real collector goes about doing things just like he/she always have...

 

jom

[spy88]

Now I know that eye appeal is part of a coins grade, and some will say that is the reason a nicely toned coin should get a bump in its grade, but I disagree. A untoned coin can have just as much eye appeal as a toned one, and toning is and always will be subjective, two people can look at the same toned coin and see two completely different things. One may see beautiful color while the other sees tarnish. I believe that today’s collectors are smart enough to realize that they will have to pay more for a rare date or colorfully toned coin or they will not be able to acquire one.

 

John, I agree with you 100%. A coin should be graded on its technical merits alone! That was/is the sole purpose of the TPGs when they first started slabbing and grading. As many have said before me, there are two reasons for slabbing a coin:

1) To assign a coin a grade based on the CONDITION of the coin

2) To protect said coin thus maintaining its grade

 

Any further consideration, IMO, such as tone, eye appeal, rarity of mintage, etc. should NOT be a factor in assigning a grade. They are a personal preference and have nothing to do with the actual condition of a coin. The TPGs should leave these qualifications up to the individual, as they are as varied as there are collectors.

 

If two coins of the same date and mint have the same technical grade due to marks, but one is nicely toned should that coin get a 2 to 3 point boost in its grade over the untoned coin? Remember, if the toned coin were untoned it would be no better than the other coin.

 

NONONONOONONONOONONOONO AND NO!

 

When they get into assigning a grade based on anything but the technical merits of a coin, they are essentially saying to us, the collecting community, that they know better then we do what we want in a coin. THAT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE PROSPECTIVE PURCASER!

 

The same goes for a rare date compared to a common date in the same series. If both coins are equal in their technical grade, should the rarer coin have its grade bumped up a few points for nothing other than the fact that it is rarer?

 

NONONONONONONONONONONO AND NO!

 

I say leave it up to the market to decide what if any premium a coin should command above its technical grade for color or rarity.

 

A RESOUNDING YES!

[errorist]

I think they should be graded like any other coin except have a designation like UTONE for ULTRA TONE. It would be like UCAM for ULTRA CAMEO.

It would also be possible to have a coin that is UTONE-UCAM.

KINGKOIN KING OF KOINS

[chinook]

"I say leave it up to the market to decide what if any premium a coin should command above its technical grade for color or rarity. "

 

That sums it up for me.

[RobertB]

"I say leave it up to the market to decide what if any premium a coin should command above its technical grade for color or rarity. "

 

That sums it up for me.

 

Absolutely. 'Just the facts ma'am.' I wants grades based on facts such as strike, etc..., not colors or tone. I wholeheartedly second the above quote. NGC and others, please take note!

[Leothelion]

Eye appeal is unequivically the resounding reasoning behind every grade of every coin. Is this true? Well, for the least part, if not, it is considered into the equation of the grade whether it's a factor or not but to what extent? The strike doesn't even enter the picture for most coins let alone eye appeal! The question is bunk as we have ugly, middle road and beautiful VF, BU, MS, PF coins but yet, each can merit identical grades. Again market gradeing is bunk because it can not stand alone without a description of the coin. How else can it be deciphered without one less a picture? Ah ha, you say, to whom am I talking to and this is my precise point!

So it does depend upon what side of the playing field you're on while the problem lies within the massive, clueless public who invest in gold, stocks AND coins based on the gospel of others including the TGCs. Whether they win or lose unless they have gambled it all, many live and learn and move on. Those who were successful will do it again. This is the only real reason for the registries, it's nothing less then bait the investors use to fool the public into buying their craap. But remember, many do win but few strike it rich but nontheless, the system remains and and the demand keeps it there.

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

If two coins of the same date and mint have the same technical grade due to marks, but one is nicely toned should that coin get a 2 to 3 point boost in its grade over the untoned coin? Remember, if the toned coin were untoned it would be no better than the other coin.

 

Eye-appeal is a key factor in the grade of a coin. Toning may add eye-appeal but the most *bonus* points to be awarded should not exceed one (1).

 

Spy88, I was surprised at your comment that eye-appeal should not be a consideration when determining the grade of a coin. Give me two identical, technically graded coins and I'd pick the one with the greatest eye-appeal everytime.

 

Errorist, novel idea, dude!

 

[Wihlborg]

Victor,

 

This post is not directed to you personally, but I had a feeling that my post might be misunderstood in regards to how I feel the eye appeal of a coin should be factored into a coins grade, so I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what it is I believe about a coins eye appeal in relation to its grade.

 

I firmly believe that eye appeal is one of the most important aspects of a coins grade. Personally, I always buy the most eye appealing coins I can find, or afford.

 

What I am talking about is when there are two coins with the same technical grade, and the same luster (eye appeal), and both of them would grade the same if both were untoned, but one is toned and gets a bump in its grade for nothing other than the fact that it is toned. Or when the untoned coin is technically superior to the toned coin and has excellent eye appeal in its own right, but the toned coin is graded higher than the untoned one only because of its tone. Also while I don’t presume to talk for David (spy88) I don’t think he meant that overall, the eye appeal of a coin should not be factored into the grade of a coin. I believe what he meant was that any additional presumed eye appeal due only to toning should not be factored into the coins grade. After all who amongst us does not want an eye appealing coin?

 

John

 

[braddick]

Grading translates to desirability.

 

Grading is simply shorthand on assessing a coin's attributes, negative and positive. It is up to the Collector to use the GRADE as only ONE subjective tool in determining VALUE.

[EZ_E]

John, I can understand what you are saying. I've seen some toned coins that I think are butt-ugly. If they were mine, I'd dip those suckers. Yet, I've seen them bring high-dollar and have extremely high grades. That's where the subjectivity comes in. But, I still stand by my original thought: if a coin's toning actually adds beauty then that affects the eye-appeal, which may effect the grade. Obviously, though, this is not a perfect system since opinions vary about the eye-appeal of toning. So ... because of the duplicity of subjectivity, I guess that there is no real concrete answer.

[Wihlborg]

Grading translates to desirability.

 

Grading is simply shorthand on assessing a coin's attributes, negative and positive. It is up to the Collector to use the GRADE as only ONE subjective tool in determining VALUE.

 

I agree, but the question is should the grading companies decide for us that a technical MS-63 with nice toning is as equally or more desirable as an accurately graded MS-65 white coin by putting the MS-63 in a higher grade holder? Don’t marks in prime focal areas of a coin affect its eye appeal? Why are marks overlooked in favor of tone?

 

John

 

[Leothelion]

Here's an answer you may consider. Yesterday, I received the DHRC newsletter and read a couple of pages before tossing it out. But in one of the first articles, some guy made a statement that coin collecting was all about numbers. What a joke! I can't remember who said it but if any of you have the article, read it and tell me if you agree with it. Coin collecting is about coins, not numbers. It's just another part of the ongoing deluge they keep feeding the public because most ARE BUYING IT.

 

Leo

[Wihlborg]

Victor,

 

There is really only one reason market grading exists at all, and that is so the grading companies can assign a higher VALUE to a coin than its technical grade would justify.

 

My problem with this is why are the grading companies deciding for us what that value, if any should be. We all know a beautifully toned coin when we see one. We are aware that if we want one of these coins we are going to have to pay more to acquire it due to the added desirability of such coins. This happens everyday at coins shows and in coin shops, on eBay and at auctions. The coins with the best eye appeal toned or untoned are sold for higher prices than the going rate of their assigned grade, and I am not talking about market graded coins, I am talking about accurately graded coins selling for more than the value of their assigned grade. If this is so why do we need market graded coins? IMO all market grading does is undermine the collector’s confidence in the grading companies ability to grade accurately and consistently.

 

Actually, I believe that NGC already has the solution to this problem with their star designation. NGC uses the star designation to give special recognition to coins with outstanding eye appeal, toned or white. If all the grading companies adopted a similar designation for coins with outstanding eye appeal then there would be no need to market grade coins. The grading companies could assign a coin its technical grade and if they think that it has some other attribute that makes it more desirable than other similarly graded coins they can give it their designation. At least with a system like this a coin graded MS-65 would really be a MS-65 and not a MS-63 in disguise.

 

I say let the grading companies do what most collectors want, and that is to assign a technical grade to a coin as accurately and consistently as humanly possible and leave the decision of how much of a premium a coin should command above its technical grade for color or rarity up to the buyers and sellers.

 

Once again, I am not directing these comments to you personally Victor, I am just trying to further clarify my point of view.

 

John

 

[Hoot]

I believe that today’s collectors are smart enough to realize that they will have to pay more for a rare date or colorfully toned coin or they will not be able to acquire one.

 

Hmmm...

 

It's just another part of the ongoing deluge they keep feeding the public because most ARE BUYING IT.

 

Ah!

 

I agree with Leo. I think that it's the vast minority of people who are savvy enough to realize that you have to pay MORE for a great looking coin than a bla coin of the same technical grade. Auctions and other sales prove this point over and over again (and they provide contrary information as well). Thus, we have the services providing a service of market grading. But that's not the only reason why...

 

(The depth of this discussion is pretty vast, so I apologize in advance for heaps of information left out )

 

Market grading is the long time standard of coin grading. Remember, before Sheldon, coins traded among a small group of individuals who were into preserving the value of coins, not just their monetary worth or even condition. Descriptions of coins from early collections and auctions are reflective of a "coin culture" who valued coins for many reasons, but only a very few valued them for their initial states of preservation or "mint state." That's why so many coins of the 1700s and 1800s were routinely cleaned, often abrasively, by their collectors.

 

So, Sheldon came along and provided a scale of standardized monetary worth. All he truly did was look at early coppers and differentiate them by their monetary worth based on their overall appeal, and he also considered rarity. This scale has its advantages over the one or two word descriptions of days of old, but it fall short of telling you if a coin's been cleaned, if it has X number of marks on it, how it is struck, if it is corroded or toned, etc., etc.

 

Along comes a more "rational lot" who assign the technical standards of the ANA. These give us guidelines but do not form a formulaic solution to coin grading. Why? Because they ignore what coin collectors have always looked at: value (not only monetary worth), including appeal, rarity, and perhaps a few other things. So the technical standards do not confer a sense of reason to coin grading because rational standards do not consider the human condition which has much more dimension to it than rationality. (Keep in mind, I'm a scientist!)

 

In short, technical grading sells coin grading vastly short of the consideration of value. Value cannot be determined but by a very few in this field who are astutely aware of its manifestation in any single coin and any given series. I therefore vote whole-heartedly for market grading and all of its shortcomings, because the sortcomings are far fewer than those of technical grading.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

The coins with the best eye appeal toned or untoned are sold for higher prices than the going rate of their assigned grade, and I am not talking about market graded coins, I am talking about accurately graded coins selling for more than the value of their assigned grade.

 

John - from personal experience, I simply cannot agree with this. Over and over, I see great looking coins sell for far less than they should because nobody wants to pay the reasonable premium. Rarity is lost upon collectors at large, as are other aspects of value. Instead, they rely on greysheet numbers, and population reports, and registry scores to determine the monetary worth of the coins that are considered. Value is lost upon the vast collecting public and resides with only a few.

 

Hoot

[EZ_E]

There is really only one reason market grading exists at all, and that is so the grading companies can assign a higher VALUE to a coin than its technical grade would justify.

 

You're right. TPG svc's sole purpose is to set the value of a coin. That is why there is market grading (which I am opposed to).

 

My problem with this is why are the grading companies deciding for us what that value, if any should be. We all know a beautifully toned coin when we see one. We are aware that if we want one of these coins we are going to have to pay more to acquire it due to the added desirability of such coins. This happens everyday at coins shows and in coin shops, on eBay and at auctions. The coins with the best eye appeal toned or untoned are sold for higher prices than the going rate of their assigned grade, and I am not talking about market graded coins, I am talking about accurately graded coins selling for more than the value of their assigned grade. If this is so why do we need market graded coins? IMO all market grading does is undermine the collector’s confidence in the grading companies ability to grade accurately and consistently.

 

I agree whole-heartedly!

 

Actually, I believe that NGC already has the solution to this problem with their star designation. NGC uses the star designation to give special recognition to coins with outstanding eye appeal, toned or white. If all the grading companies adopted a similar designation for coins with outstanding eye appeal then there would be no need to market grade coins. The grading companies could assign a coin its technical grade and if they think that it has some other attribute that makes it more desirable than other similarly graded coins they can give it their designation.

 

You make an excellent point here, John. You've actually influenced my thinking with this point. Thanks. I almost totally agree but I think that nice toning alone should perhaps receive the star designation. However, although related, eye-appeal is more than just mere toning. Luster is an even more important factor which can boost the grade up a notch or two.

 

Once again, I am not directing these comments to you personally Victor, I am just trying to further clarify my point of view.

 

Too late, John. I think that I need a hug.

 

 

[Hoot]

I only wish that the third party grading services would split grade all coins - obverse and reverese. This would be VASTLY better than a single grade for the entire coin for the information provided.

 

BTW, I also like the star designation for the points considered.

 

Hoot

[EZ_E]

I only wish that the third party grading services would split grade all coins - obverse and reverese. This would be VASTLY better than a single grade for the entire coin for the information provided.

 

BTW, I also like the star designation for the points considered.

 

Hoot

 

I somewhat agree but what would that do for pricing the coin? It seems that it would be a little more difficult to do so.

 

The more that I think about it then the more that I like the star suggestion.

[Wihlborg]

Hoot,

 

When I use the terms technical grading and market grading I am using them for a lack of better terms.

 

I realize that ‘market grading’ as it is practiced today is not going to go away, nor would I want it to. When I use the term technical grading I do not mean anything radical by it, what I really mean is to grade coins just as they are being graded today, BUT do not grade a coin any higher for tone or rarity than it would have been graded if it were white or a common date.

 

I honestly do not think that this could be anything but an advantage to the grading companies as well as the collectors. Most collectors are probably blissfully unaware that coins are market graded or what market grading even means. For example, when they see a coin like that 63d Jefferson in an MS-66 holder they may not know what market grading is, but they do know that there is no way that a coin with that many marks on it belongs in a MS-66 holder, so the grading companies ability to grade coins accurately becomes suspect, which in turn undermines the hobby as a whole.

 

Just my thoughts

 

John

 

[EZ_E]

The greatest downfall of the grading services is the demand for production. Sorry, but 10 seconds a coin is usually not enough time to grade accurately (Although the first impression is usually correct). If graders were salaried and more were added to the staff, then TPG svc's would be much better and much more accurate but, alas, this will never happen because of profit motives and poor incentive for the grader.

[Wihlborg]

Over and over, I see great looking coins sell for far less than they should because nobody wants to pay the reasonable premium. Rarity is lost upon collectors at large, as are other aspects of value. Instead, they rely on greysheet numbers, and population reports, and registry scores to determine the monetary worth of the coins that are considered. Value is lost upon the vast collecting public and resides with only a few.

 

Hoot,

 

I agree, but I must ask than, what is the true market value of these coins?

 

Do I agree that a great coin should sell for far less than it may be worth? No, but coins will only sell for what collectors are willing to pay for them. IMO the majority of collectors do not invest large amounts of money in the hobby, and buy low to middle value coins. At the next level are the bargain hunters, they want a higher grade coin, but they don’t want to pay for a quality coin. The cheapest one will do. And lastly, there are those collectors who are willing to pay for quality coins. I am sure I am not telling you anything you don’t already know. So IMO getting a premium for a PQ coin would depend upon what type of collector is interested in buying the coin.

 

John

 

[MikeKing]

What's left for the collector?

[stman]

Hoot, I've always been against the market grading. Now I'm not saying a dull lifeless technically sound coin should receive the same grade as a beautifully toned coin with great eye-appeal all the time.

 

Hold on now I'm getting ready to give you a great compliment here.

 

The way you presented your case for the market grading was very well put and a great read. I've never seen someone put it in words so nicely. I'm pretty stubborn in my collecting habits, but I was open to opinions. Probably won't change my mind, but you indeed made me think on the subject.

 

Right at this moment, there is a coin I've been considering that does set itself apart from others in the eye-appeal department. It's been market graded up a point accordingly. I have made an exception from time to time, and purchased a coin like this. But I usually try and weed the market graded ones out. Now this coin I mentioned is graded 67, with nice color, luster, and such. But from a technical aspect it is really only a 66.

 

The price difference as you can imagine is huge.

 

Here is what I don't like about market grading. I call it the "Double Bump." The grading service gives a one point bump for color and eye-appeal, then the seller looks at this coin and says " Hmmm, this is such and such grade, it has nice color, so we need to charge a premium for this." Hence the stman theory of the "Double Bump."

[Wihlborg]

Here is what I don't like about market grading. I call it the "Double Bump." The grading service gives a one point bump for color and eye-appeal, then the seller looks at this coin and says " Hmmm, this is such and such grade, it has nice color, so we need to charge a premium for this." Hence the stman theory of the "Double Bump.

 

Stman,

 

IMO this is more fact than theory, and your comment goes directly to one of the points I am trying to make, which is that it should be left to the market to decide how much of a premium, if any a toned coin should command.

 

 

John

 

 

 

[Hoot]

Great discussion and great thread John. Thanks to everyone for contributing.

 

BTW, I think that 63-D nickel and the 32 Saint were overgraded! BUT! that's only by the rotten method of "picture grading" and nothing from an in-person evaluation.

 

Hoot

[TonerGuy]

Right at this moment, there is a coin I've been considering that does set itself apart from others in the eye-appeal department. It's been market graded up a point accordingly.

 

Ah, be careful there Stman, that's a coin that just sucks you in. Buy it if you'll enjoy and keep it, but I'd worry about resale on that one. That's some bucks to spend, better to get a solid MS65 with color bumped to a 66 then a 66 to a 67.

 

JMHO

Michael

[Wihlborg]

Thanks Hoot, I would also like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. I respect, and have enjoyed reading everyone’s opinion on this subject both pro AND con. I truly believe that it is good to have discussions such as these from time to time to gain insight into how other’s feel about the issues that affect us as collectors on a daily basis.

 

John

 

[GDJMSP]

 

I agree with Leo. I think that it's the vast minority of people who are savvy enough to realize that you have to pay MORE for a great looking coin than a bla coin of the same technical grade. Auctions and other sales prove this point over and over again (and they provide contrary information as well). Thus, we have the services providing a service of market grading. But that's not the only reason why...

 

It's not often that I disagree with you Hoot but on a few of these points I do. I think more people realize this than you give them credit for. Just offer a collector the choice of a blah coin or a great looking coin of the same grade for the same money and see which one they buy. They'll take the great looking coin every time.

 

Few ever consider the psychological aspect of coin collecting. It has a much greater bearing on the habits of collectors than most give it credit for. It is my belief that the issue here is one of ego. It is a rare collector that you will find who does not want the best coin he can afford. For that is the mantra that has always been shoved down their throats. It is also human nature. For a large part of the joy of collecting is to be able to share your collection with others of your ilk. And humans are naturally competitive. So while a given collector may not be able to afford the great looking coin for more money he may be able to afford the blah coin of the same grade for less money. And this allows him to provide himself the illusion that his collection is as good as the other guy's. And since the grading companies are out to make their customers happy and thus keep the bottom line increasing - we have market grading.

 

Market grading is the long time standard of coin grading. Remember, before Sheldon, coins traded among a small group of individuals who were into preserving the value of coins, not just their monetary worth or even condition. Descriptions of coins from early collections and auctions are reflective of a "coin culture" who valued coins for many reasons, but only a very few valued them for their initial states of preservation or "mint state." That's why so many coins of the 1700s and 1800s were routinely cleaned, often abrasively, by their collectors.

 

I would agree with part of your statement here - but the "when" has a much greater influence than the "what" when it comes to determining the definition of a desirable coin to a collector. In different periods of time collectors have had different definitions of desirability. Bright & shiny was once it as you mentioned. It has only been in relatively recent years that originality had a bearing.

 

So, Sheldon came along and provided a scale of standardized monetary worth. All he truly did was look at early coppers and differentiate them by their monetary worth based on their overall appeal, and he also considered rarity. This scale has its advantages over the one or two word descriptions of days of old, but it fall short of telling you if a coin's been cleaned, if it has X number of marks on it, how it is struck, if it is corroded or toned, etc., etc.

 

Along comes a more "rational lot" who assign the technical standards of the ANA. These give us guidelines but do not form a formulaic solution to coin grading. Why? Because they ignore what coin collectors have always looked at: value (not only monetary worth), including appeal, rarity, and perhaps a few other things. So the technical standards do not confer a sense of reason to coin grading because rational standards do not consider the human condition which has much more dimension to it than rationality. (Keep in mind, I'm a scientist!)

 

In short, technical grading sells coin grading vastly short of the consideration of value. Value cannot be determined but by a very few in this field who are astutely aware of its manifestation in any single coin and any given series. I therefore vote whole-heartedly for market grading and all of its shortcomings, because the shortcomings are far fewer than those of technical grading.

 

Hoot

 

Here lies the crux of the problem in my eyes. What you seem to be expressing is the desire for the grading of coins to establish their value - not their condition. They are two entirely different things.

 

You say techinical grading falls short of establishing value - well it's not supposed to establish value. It's supposed to establish condition. And as you mention the human condition - this is where we get back to the psychological aspect - is ignored. It should be ignored. Value is a relative term and one that can only be determined by the individual who wishes to purchase a given coin. For it is only in his eyes that value can be determined. What may be desirable to him may not be desirable and thus valuable to you or me. That is a determination that we should be able to make for ourselves. Not to have some grading company tell us what is valuable and what is not.

 

Perceptions of what constitutes value change as often as time changes. As you have said yourself - at various times in the history of collecting bright and shiny or harshly cleaned coins were considered to be desirable. Today they are not. At one point just a few years ago blast white coins just as they came from the mint were desirable and commanded premium prices. Today - toned coins are all the rage. What will it be tomorrow ?

 

This the problem with market grading - changes. Human nature - likes & dislikes. For what is popular today likely will not be tomorrow. But if the coins which are desirable today are placed into slabs with a given grade that establishes their value instead of their condition - then what will that value be tomorrow when the popularity is no longer there ? Coin grading should establish condition - not value. Condition will not change - value will. And as such the grade of coin should not change just because of what is popular at the given time.