What form of Grading do you Prefer - Technical or Market

[michael]

short answer---------market grading

 

 

 

 

 

 

but in the real world

 

 

 

with coins that FIRST meet MY technical standards

 

and everything is always and forever based on price

[BillJones]

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

 

 

Years ago dealers came with so much flowery language to describe the condition of a coin that you were totally confused with the result. The numerical grade brought back a standard and a level of precision to the process. The numerical grade is a good starting point and further descriptions can be set forth from there.

 

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.

 

 

I agree with you completely. In some ways a small rub on a coin is overrated compared to major scratches, corrosion spots and rim nicks. I paid Mint State money for Choice AU coins (early coins 1793 to 1807) many times and never went wrong.

 

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.

 

 

This is the nature of collectors who buy such things. It's not my taste. I like well struck coins, but if I can get an almost split bans piece for a fraction of the cost I'll go for it.

[jom]

Years ago dealers came with so much flowery language to describe the condition of a coin that you were totally confused with the result. The numerical grade brought back a standard and a level of precision to the process. The numerical grade is a good starting point and further descriptions can be set forth from there.

 

True but using the one number system certainly hasn't stopped anyone today for doing this very same thing.

 

For the money paid to these TPGs I'd love to see the old style ANACS type listing of the quality of: Luster, Strike, Surface and Color. That's better than just ONE number. Besides it is very difficult to grade a coin that a wide disparity in a couple of its attributes (great luster, poor strike for example) so breaking it down is far better.

 

I agree with you completely. In some ways a small rub on a coin is overrated compared to major scratches, corrosion spots and rim nicks. I paid Mint State money for Choice AU coins (early coins 1793 to 1807) many times and never went wrong.

 

Even in case where there is a bit more rub they are still superior to MS coins that look like a John Deere tractor ran over them. Even some that have impaired luster don't hold up to superior AU pieces. It's just a matter of magnitude....

 

This is the nature of collectors who buy such things. It's not my taste. I like well struck coins, but if I can get an almost split bans piece for a fraction of the cost I'll go for it.

 

That's true. But you know as well as I do that a just barely made it FB coin (or FBL or FT or whatever) gets the bit price jump ONLY if it's surrounded in plastic. That's the problem...there are no "in betweens". In fact, all of these added labels like stars, plus signs, green labels and strike designations will NEVER make up for it. Making a more precise system of an already inaccurate and subject process is...well...absurd.

 

jom

[ultra-crepidarian]

I would prefer the TPGs lean more toward technical grading. There is already disagreement over technical grades, introducing market considerations just lead to more subjectivity in the grading process. We need TPGs to be as consistent and objective as possible and let the numismatic community determine more subjective value considerations.

[Crohnos01]

I will admit, I had to really think about this. The reality is, I would prefer technical grading, but if a coin strikes my fancy and I get emotionally infatuated with it, technically it may be a sow's ear, but it's MY sow's ear! The bite comes when you want to sell or trade for something new...you just have to hope that since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, someone (preferably a lot of someone's) see the same beauty you do..

[fishfinder]

Subjective vs objective assessment of the coin is the question. I wouldn't mind seeing a categorical grade made by experts that includes technical and market categories. eg. strike, luster, preservation, eye appeal, marketability, surface condition, hits, spotting, die state, etc. all graded 0/10 or 0/5. Why just stick a star or a bean or a math symbol to it when so much more could be evaluated?

[BillJones]

For the money paid to these TPGs I'd love to see the old style ANACS type listing of the quality of: Luster, Strike, Surface and Color. That's better than just ONE number. Besides it is very difficult to grade a coin that a wide disparity in a couple of its attributes (great luster, poor strike for example) so breaking it down is far better.

 

 

When ANACS was doing that, I did not care for it. Some of these factors have a subjective side them, and when they marked a coin as such, it made harder to sell the coin. It's not fair to put a black mark on the coin because of the opinion of whoever made the calls. As all of know the graders know a lot, but they don't know it all. There are some issues that are almost always poorly struck or which have so-so luster. The issue should be put in context.

 

If you used the 1881-S dollars as your standard, then the silver dollars from a lot of other date and mint mark combinations would fall short. You can't campare the luster in an 1881-S with an 1885-P dollar. The 1885-P was usually well made, but it could not compare with the 1881-S.

[Oldtrader3]

Bill, we get lot of questions from newbies apparently, about this very subject. This seems to be expecially true of Morgan dollars. I guess since that is the preferred venue of new collectors quite often. Most of them, for instance, have no idea that the New Orleans Mint never made coins with the strike quality of Philadelphia coins or that dollars from 1900 on are totally a different surface finish and texture from the early dies. I do not know if the problem is "read the book before buying coins"? Or if many of these these collectors spring full blown into the adult world with the assurance that they know everything without having to ever pay dues, becuase their mother told them they were special?

 

Maybe the issue is that many young people now seem to approach all elders with scepticism that dictates knowing (or thinking they know) that experienced elders hardly know anything at all and if they do, it is just a thin veneer of knowledge that is not to be trusted or even believed? I see younger collectors being very rude to older, more experienced people who are trying to help them and these youngsters, if they listen at all do so with a skeptical sneer on their faces and often with snarky responses that are way overboard for the topic at hand. I find this trend really disturbing especially considering their lack of experience and in depth knowledge. I guess the drop-of-a-hat combativeness is the warning sign?

 

I belong to other hobby boards in other fields as well and this seems to be a universal trend with some young people. Be rude and obnoxious in reaction rather than trying to gain some insight from those who came before and might really actually know something. I even had one young twit (on another board) tell me that all of my higher education was wasted. He is a high school dropout, judging by expressive style and illiterative skills. He contended that all schooling is a worthless waste of time, money, when all that time in school (or other types of education) could have been better spent trying to be swave (sic) and debonar (sic) like him despite not being able to express himself clearly, or ever, ever, having an original thought.

 

 

[Lastufka Collection]

That's a shame Oldtrader3. I'm (relatively) young compared to others on the board here and can't help but learn something new in almost every thread over the last few months. I would be lost without this resource and the friends I'm currently making here, young and old. I sometimes feel like I need to apologize for my entire generation when I see the above kind of situations happening.

[HCumberdale]

That's a shame Oldtrader3. I'm (relatively) young compared to others on the board here and can't help but learn something new in almost every thread over the last few months. I would be lost without this resource and the friends I'm currently making here, young and old. I sometimes feel like I need to apologize for my entire generation when I see the above kind of situations happening.

 

(thumbs u

 

I think one of the major issues with my generation is that since information is so freely available to us, we feel that we can become "experts" at the drop of a hat. Not only that, but since "knowledge" found on the internet doesn't go through a vetting process and is often found to be incorrect, we begin to believe that everything we hear or read is more of a matter of opinion than fact. Combine that with youthful arrogance and it is easy for someone young to believe they have just as much "real" knowledge as someone in the business for 3 decades!

 

That said I have also (less often) encountered the bias against youth, and find it even more unfortunate. Coming from a psychology background I can somewhat forgive young arrogance. I find it harder to forgive those more experienced who should know better than think they know everything. Then again, maybe I am just biased in favor of my current age. Talk to me 30 years from now and then we'll see what I think.

 

 

[jom]

When ANACS was doing that, I did not care for it. Some of these factors have a subjective side them, and when they marked a coin as such, it made harder to sell the coin. It's not fair to put a black mark on the coin because of the opinion of whoever made the calls. As all of know the graders know a lot, but they don't know it all. There are some issues that are almost always poorly struck or which have so-so luster. The issue should be put in context.

 

Yeah, but isn't that what is happening now? Subjective issues in grading don't go away if you just have a number. I can't imagine a time when the "opinion" of the TPGs have carried more weight than now. Today we even have the negative connotation of a slab NOT having a CAC sticker or a + sign. I don't see how it was worse when each attribute was mentioned.

 

Of course, if what you say above is true that only reaffirms my opinion that the TPGs are not here for the collectors but for the "market makers" and dealers.

 

If you used the 1881-S dollars as your standard, then the silver dollars from a lot of other date and mint mark combinations would fall short. You can't campare the luster in an 1881-S with an 1885-P dollar. The 1885-P was usually well made, but it could not compare with the 1881-S.

 

If a 1885-P dollar doesn't match up to the luster of an 1881-S and it is graded as such isn't that the classic definition of a "condition rarity"? That just means there are far less 85-P dollars in, say, MS65. Why is that bad?

 

jom

[copper toning]

Dear Old Trader,

 

I do believe you are generalizing an entire group from a few people. I can say from experience I have personally had from you and a few other elites of the forums that when I ask for an opinion and you deliver you expect that to be the end all.

 

When I reply and ask a question or make a comment about what has been said it is to better understand your reasoning which is part of learning. Surely you can not expect that to be accomplished in one reply?

 

How ever many times it seems the very next reply is rude and in disgust. I do believe the last time I commented in an appropriate manor. Your response was JUST KEEP FISHING TILL YOU HEAR WHAT YOU WANT WANT. Obviously it was enough to set you off and be done with me.

 

That attitude will not get you the respect you feel you deserve. I question my local dealers quite frequently and this typically leads to educational discussions in which I learn some old school lessons and they can take away a younger persons perspective on certain markets which can help them as well.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

If you used the 1881-S dollars as your standard, then the silver dollars from a lot of other date and mint mark combinations would fall short. You can't campare the luster in an 1881-S with an 1885-P dollar. The 1885-P was usually well made, but it could not compare with the 1881-S.

 

If a 1885-P dollar doesn't match up to the luster of an 1881-S and it is graded as such isn't that the classic definition of a "condition rarity"? That just means there are far less 85-P dollars in, say, MS65. Why is that bad?

 

jom

 

One of the tenets of market grading is that each issue must be graded on its own standard. If the 85P is usually poorly made, then one that is better will grade higher. You can't compare it on an absolute term to coins of other dates. This is in stark contrast to technical grading, which mandates that all coins be judged on an absolute scale - even a superb 85P will not compare well to the average Morgan, and thus must be graded lower. There are numerous implications to this, which I will not go into here.

 

 

[copper toning]

From what I have gathered from the forums on tech/market grading I beleive I have unknowingly been using both. It is also come to light this is a good thing. It seems you will be hard pressed to survive on one or the other. Now it is finding the correct mixture of the two.

[BillJones]

From what I have gathered from the forums on tech/market grading I beleive I have unknowingly been using both. It is also come to light this is a good thing. It seems you will be hard pressed to survive on one or the other. Now it is finding the correct mixture of the two.

 

Now you are starting to understand what we have been saying. (thumbs u

[shirohniichan]

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?

 

This one's easy. One says "FB" on the slab, and the other doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

I did not want to point fingers and should not have generalized so much. It is a given that many younger people are thoughtful and sensitve people. I was not including all of that generation, just a few individuals.

[James_OldeTowne]

If the 85P is usually poorly made, then one that is better will grade higher. You can't compare it on an absolute term to coins of other dates. This is in stark contrast to technical grading, which mandates that all coins be judged on an absolute scale - even a superb 85P will not compare well to the average Morgan, and thus must be graded lower.

Actually, I think you will find the opposite. Technical grading does not mandate an individual issue in a series to be graded against the "ideal" within a series. Rather, it mandates that the starting point (the "details" grade) must reflect the situation where certain issues were manufactured better or worse than others in the same series. "Die state" is a classic example.

 

Maybe 1881-S Morgans are pretty much always "nice". But if it were known that a certain obverse die cracked, and therefore in its die state was unable to produce well struck coins, then a technical grade would account for that and grade the coin properly within the technical context. In other words, an UNC 1881-S with a shattered obverse die that always created mushy detail could very well grade MS-65. (Of course, that particular 1881-S would have it's own die-marriage ["variety"] assigned, which would keep all those defective-die coins in the same population.)

 

Similarly, if it is known that all 1885s were struck from mushy dies and always produced lackluster, mushy coins, then any individual 1885 would be graded against only the ideal for 1885, not for other coins in the series. The "maximum possible grade" for any particular issue graded technically is only the best possible coin for those particular dies, not for the entire series.

[Oldtrader3]

Good points James.

[Kamillion]

Bill, we get lot of questions from newbies apparently, about this very subject. This seems to be expecially true of Morgan dollars. I guess since that is the preferred venue of new collectors quite often. Most of them, for instance, have no idea that the New Orleans Mint never made coins with the strike quality of Philadelphia coins or that dollars from 1900 on are totally a different surface finish and texture from the early dies. I do not know if the problem is "read the book before buying coins"? Or if many of these these collectors spring full blown into the adult world with the assurance that they know everything without having to ever pay dues, becuase their mother told them they were special?

 

Maybe the issue is that many young people now seem to approach all elders with scepticism that dictates knowing (or thinking they know) that experienced elders hardly know anything at all and if they do, it is just a thin veneer of knowledge that is not to be trusted or even believed? I see younger collectors being very rude to older, more experienced people who are trying to help them and these youngsters, if they listen at all do so with a skeptical sneer on their faces and often with snarky responses that are way overboard for the topic at hand. I find this trend really disturbing especially considering their lack of experience and in depth knowledge. I guess the drop-of-a-hat combativeness is the warning sign?

 

I belong to other hobby boards in other fields as well and this seems to be a universal trend with some young people. Be rude and obnoxious in reaction rather than trying to gain some insight from those who came before and might really actually know something. I even had one young twit (on another board) tell me that all of my higher education was wasted. He is a high school dropout, judging by expressive style and illiterative skills. He contended that all schooling is a worthless waste of time, money, when all that time in school (or other types of education) could have been better spent trying to be swave (sic) and debonar (sic) like him despite not being able to express himself clearly, or ever, ever, having an original thought.

 

 

not sure where you are coming from, but i see the exact opposite. cant tell you how many times i see older people that think they know everything. not talking about coins though. talking about more important issues...

 

edit: schooling is a waste of time for some, it was for me. i did it anyway just to make my parents happy. not that it mattered that i wasted 4 years of my life being exposed to things you would never imagine.

 

guess my point is, never generalize..

 

ok im done. didnt even read rest of thread, just thought this post was a bit ignorant.

[jom]

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?

 

This one's easy. One says "FB" on the slab, and the other doesn't.

 

But but but...isn't the extra printing cost worth that?!

 

Seriously though, your response is NOT "insane" at all. In fact, that is EXACTLY what it is.

 

jom