What form of Grading do you Prefer - Technical or Market

[physics-fan3.14]

There has been some discussion lately about the different forms of grading, and what exactly each means. So, I thought it might be interesting to do a poll to see which people prefer. First, to define each term:

 

TECHNICAL GRADING

Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage Auction Galleries, defines technical grading as “A system of grading which only takes into account that which has happened to a coin after the minting process (i.e. the state of preservation). Technical graders often ignore strike and eye-appeal.” The technical grade only takes into account the marks, rub, and hits that the coin has suffered – it nearly completely disregards the other factors.

 

MARKET GRADING

Q. David Bowers describes thusly: “Under this philosophy, a coin is assigned a single grade number which reflects its market price, not necessarily its technical grade." This is the practice used by the TPGs, and weighs things like strike, luster, eye appeal, and other factors to place a value on a coin.

 

Be honest with your answer, I would like to get an accurate representation!

[Walkerfan]

MARKET GRADING all the way (by definition).

 

Nothing worse than a poorly struck, lack-luster coin.

[Chris1976]

I still choose Technical Grading, but from what I understand is that the Strike is taken into account as it is one of the main determining factors of preservation.

 

I am completely against Market Grading as I do not feel that the "price" or how "pretty" the coin is should have any influence at all as to what the coin grades. After all I was always under the impression that a MS/PF 70 was as close to perfect as a coin could get. I think that things such as "pretty tarnish" should bump the grade or overall condition of the coin up to a higher rank.

 

Just my thoughts and I know not everyone will agree. That's their choice and their thoughts.

[TonerGuy]

I like toners... thus I like market grading.

 

But I think NGC has the solution for toners with the * idea...

 

 

[shirohniichan]

I prefer technical grading. Tell me what the grade is first, and then I can decide if it's nice for the grade. If it's technically an EF45 coin with a great strike and wonderful surfaces, feel free to price it as an AU50.

[RWB]

I prefer Caterpillar for most graders, but Kyocera makes some very tough smaller bull dozers. The Komatsu HM400-3 truck is nice but expensive.

 

Ohhh...as to coins, I want to know the state of preservation of the coin. I don't care who owned it, where it was found or what sombody thinks it might sell for. Most of these don't matter and the cost is determined by the free market.

[cpm9ball]

Technical grading! Unfortunately, I don't have deep pockets to "encourage" how a coin may be viewed, but there are certainly others who do. Let's take "the rich get richer" out of the equation.

 

Chris

[Walkerfan]

I still choose Technical Grading, but from what I understand is that the Strike is taken into account as it is one of the main determining factors of preservation.

 

I am completely against Market Grading as I do not feel that the "price" or how "pretty" the coin is should have any influence at all as to what the coin grades. After all I was always under the impression that a MS/PF 70 was as close to perfect as a coin could get. I think that things such as "pretty tarnish" should bump the grade or overall condition of the coin up to a higher rank.

 

Just my thoughts and I know not everyone will agree. That's their choice and their thoughts.

 

Yes, I thought this, too, as strike is definitely a part of technical grading but was not mentioned in the definition of technical grading. That being included; I would prefer technical grading. I chose MARKET grading only because I was going by the OP's definition.

[James_OldeTowne]

Jim Halperin's definition is decent but definitely not completely accurate. But in the spirit of the poll... give me technical grading over market grade by a million miles.

[shirohniichan]

I request of graders what I do of journalists. Give me the facts and let me come up with an opinion. Don't report opinion as fact (unless you print it in the opinion section). An MS65 coin may look better than many MS66s, but it doesn't make it an MS66.

[PerryHall]

Since eye appeal and strike detail is important to me I voted for market grading.

[physics-fan3.14]

I still choose Technical Grading, but from what I understand is that the Strike is taken into account as it is one of the main determining factors of preservation.

 

Strike has absolutely nothing to do with preservation. You comment doesn't make sense.

[nk1nk]

I voted technical grading.

 

I do have a question, I'm less familiar with technical grading. Do all coins receive a technical grade? For example market grading results in problem coins getting a details grade, is this the case with technical grading?

 

Nick

[Oldtrader3]

I guess that I use both. When I am grading a coin for my self, I look at it towards grading technically. When I am attempting to price a coin, I use market grading. This is somewhat cumbersome but the reality is that market grading is what prices the coin in current coin markets.

 

This entire topic is a minefield of pluses and minuses that often bites the unwary and the less than knowledgeable collector. Details grading sometimes almost seems to be in the eye of the beholder but if the beholder in a TPG, it is often hard to understand the basis of this decision, especially since the two services approach the outcome differently.

 

Jason, I think that you would have to do a large double blind sampling of both collectors and graders to qualify what is actually being used because I think that it is a hybrid for both groups. Besides who in addition to me, has had a dealer market grade a coin to sell it to me and technically grade the same coin when I sold it back through them at auction?

[Raisethis2]

Old Trader hit it right on the head. A dealer is going to buy a coin based upon technical attributes of the coin but when he sells that same coin he accentuates it's luster, strike and eye appeal most often.

 

I personally only buy based upon strike, eye appeal and luster when the coin is a keeper. Anything I can afford usually has a few tiny hits or scratches anyway.

[physics-fan3.14]

I guess that I use both. When I am grading a coin for my self, I look at it towards grading technically. When I am attempting to price a coin, I use market grading. This is somewhat cumbersome but the reality is that market grading is what prices the coin in current coin markets.

 

This entire topic is a minefield of pluses and minuses that often bites the unwary and the less than knowledgeable collector. Details grading sometimes almost seems to be in the eye of the beholder but if the beholder in a TPG, it is often hard to understand the basis of this decision, especially since the two services approach the outcome differently.

 

Jason, I think that you would have to do a large double blind sampling of both collectors and graders to qualify what is actually being used because I think that it is a hybrid for both groups. Besides who in addition to me, has had a dealer market grade a coin to sell it to me and technically grade the same coin when I sold it back through them at auction?

 

Very good points, OT3. I also think that this poll is somewhat biased by those voting - many people don't want to be seen as "grading liberally", which is how they perceive market grading. The term carries a stigma based on eye appeal bumps, rarity bump, pedigree bump, etc. However, if you were to give these same collectors two dozen coins and have them explain the grades they give them - I bet many of them would use market grading techniques.

[Catbert]

Since eye appeal and strike detail is important to me I voted for market grading.

 

Me too. I will add that I'm less concerned about the grade assigned (with some caveat towards whether the grade is close in order to be assured for easy resale if necessary) and more influenced by whether the coin makes my heart flutter.

[MarkFeld]

Old Trader hit it right on the head. A dealer is going to buy a coin based upon technical attributes of the coin but when he sells that same coin he accentuates it's luster, strike and eye appeal most often.....

 

I think that is an inaccurate and unfair generalization.

 

Most dealers that I know, base their buying on a combination of the price of the coin, the merits of the coin and what they think they might/will be able to get for it. They wont pass on an attractive (market graded) coin, simply because it isn't strong on a technical basis. Likewise, they won't necessarily buy an unappealing looking coin, just because it is solid/strong based on technical grading.

[copper toning]

Based upon the given definitions I find it difficult to choose. They both seem to be lacking to me.

 

I started the market grading thread due to the fact I was told AU58 coins recieve MS grades due eye appeal. My thought was that this was wrong. I have always been under the impression that in circulated coins only wear applied and that in unc coins strike and luster was part of the technical grade. Given the definitions I was wrong and remain confused.

 

I still vote technical so the market can decide if other factors bump price.

 

I may never certify again uuuuuggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!

[johnny9434]

I went with technical. I think it is a combination of the two but just the same i believe technical rules. jmo

[FishyOne]

We're at almost an almost perfect 50-50 split in the voting!

 

It would be interesting to see how people voted by age group. Those under 50 years old vs. those over 50. No offense intended to anyone but my guess is the tried and true veterans prefer technical grading.

[BillJones]

My teste runs to a mixure of both.

 

If a coin is over graded from technical standpoint you can get ripped off by and over grade. Most collectors agree with that.

 

BUT you can be over charged on a coin that has the correct technical grade, but poor eye appeal also. Some people think that's nuts until they buy an ugly coin for the grade based on the number on the holder and then try to sell it. That's when the truth strike home. Dealer avoid unattractive coins regardless of the techical grade.

 

So I could not answer the poll given the choices.

[coinman_23885]

The market conditions change too readily for market grading to be valuable in my opinion. Some market trends are rather rapid, where there may not be enough time for a person to adjust to the "new standards."

[coinman_23885]

MARKET GRADING all the way (by definition).

 

Nothing worse than a poorly struck, lack-luster coin.

 

Strike is a consideration in technical grading.

[BillJones]

The market conditions change too readily for market grading to be valuable in my opinion. Some market trends are rather rapid, where there may not be enough time for a person to adjust to the "new standards."

 

Yes, but "ugly is always ugly."

 

One time at a social function, a "grand dame" complained to Winston Churchill, "Sir, you are drunk!"

 

To which the statesman replied, "And you, madam, are ugly, and tomorrow I will be sober!"

 

I've seen ugly coins in technical grades as high as Proof -66. The original toning had gone to the point were the mirrors were shot, but it had no hairlines!

[Hard Times]

While I chose technical grading, I want a correctly graded coin with respect to technical but I agree with the sentiment that is has to have eye appeal, it must have all qualities. I believe that is what CAC is doing with their green beans, selecting the coins with correct technical grades and also having the market appeal.

[James_OldeTowne]

It would be interesting to see how people voted by age group. Those under 50 years old vs. those over 50. No offense intended to anyone but my guess is the tried and true veterans prefer technical grading.

I'm well under 50 and in the "technical grading" crowd.

[FishyOne]

It would be interesting to see how people voted by age group. Those under 50 years old vs. those over 50. No offense intended to anyone but my guess is the tried and true veterans prefer technical grading.

I'm well under 50 and in the "technical grading" crowd.

 

As I'm sure many others are, just as many over 50 are in the market grading crowd.

 

I perceive technical grading as the more time-tested method, hence one would expect more veterans to prefer it. Being relatively new to numismatics (< 5 yrs), market grading is what I'm use to.

 

I got into Morgans/Peace early on and found many MS64 pieces ugly with average strikes and poor luster. That turned me off. They were "technical" 64s though and cheap. As I moved into more Bust and Seated material the cheapness factor, well, not so much! I had to "adjust" to the market! Hence I'm a market-grader but.......sliders I have a problem with. Seeing 55 pieces in 61/62 holders bothers me and I believe many newcomers who know only market grading need to learn to grade. That would be me!

[jom]

Great question and great thread.

 

However, I can't really say which I like. It's difficult! There are aspects of each I like and dislike.

 

There are so many things in the present coin market I find just absurd I don't even know where to begin.

 

1) Grading should be a method of describing a coin. So why do we only use a SINGLE NUMBER to accomplish this? Absurd.

 

2) Several people have mentioned in this thread how they don't like seeing AU coins in MS holders. Well, I don't like it when clearly NICER and more EYE APPEALING coins go for less money just because they have wear. To me, wear is just another detriment to a coin just like the lack of luster or strike, too many hits or bad toning. Why is wear singled out? Absurd.

 

3) Why is a Mercury Dime graded MS65FB worth, say, $5000 (or whatever it is) when one which has just a little bit less of a full band worth only $100? Or one that has MORE of the overall design struck up (say around the periphery) but not have quite full bands worth 10/20 times less? Absurd.

 

Are the above issues a matter of Technical vs. Market grading? I don't know really. Like I said it's tough to say.

 

BTW, if Market Grading were not used I wouldn't think the TPGs would have such a strangle-hold over the coin market. So if moving toward a technical system would limit the TPGs I'd be all for it.

 

jom

[Walkerfan]

MARKET GRADING all the way (by definition).

 

Nothing worse than a poorly struck, lack-luster coin.

 

Strike is a consideration in technical grading.

 

Yes, I always thought so too.