Do coin collectors and dealers really want consistent grading?

bsshog40 · August 30, 2013

Even though I don't submit, I think it would be nice if grading was consistent, but as Carl stated, no two people will see a coin the same way. I'm wondering if anyone will create a software program that can grade a coin?

are you being serious? or just joking?

last time someone tried that it turned out to be a disaster!!

remember COMPUGRADE?

Actually I was. We've had computer technology for years that can read a persons eye retina, read fingerprints, determine dna etc.... Why couldn't it be done for coins? People complain that the tpgs get coins wrong or they get a grade verified by another company that just uses different people to look at the coin. There's no consistency with different eyes on the same coin. Why not a computer??

What would be the consistency starting point for the computer program?

I agree with Marks statement for the starting point of consistency. Sometimes people aren't sitting at the boards all day to respond to your question.

If you have an issue you would like to discuss, I am most happy to do so. Your Post seems a little haughty and derisive, but I can't imagine why.

Why would you feel the need to respond in a personal attack manner?

I did not ask you to respond at all. I am asking a question.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Feld is not the point of my question, nor the thrust of my Posts.

The agreement of the starting point is immaterial; it is arriving at a consensus of the starting point definition of consistency.

If you are offended because a Post you make begs a question, especially when it is about computer equality of the human eye, then I do not know how I can make amends.

The question remains:

What would be the consistency starting point of the computer program?

You can answer or not; whether and when you answer or not, does not negate the question.

It is not hard to be courteous.

In an interesting discussion of this nature, it is fun to pick and choose the Posts we would like to respond to and/or comment on, and avoid the questions that may be uncomfortable.

Sorry John, I may have taken this out of text. You had me in a quote asking about why consistency and I wasn't able to answer back til later. I thought the " avoid questions" comment may have been directed at my post. Apologize for the confusion!

Mr.Mcknowitall · August 30, 2013

Even though I don't submit, I think it would be nice if grading was consistent, but as Carl stated, no two people will see a coin the same way. I'm wondering if anyone will create a software program that can grade a coin?

are you being serious? or just joking?

last time someone tried that it turned out to be a disaster!!

remember COMPUGRADE?

Actually I was. We've had computer technology for years that can read a persons eye retina, read fingerprints, determine dna etc.... Why couldn't it be done for coins? People complain that the tpgs get coins wrong or they get a grade verified by another company that just uses different people to look at the coin. There's no consistency with different eyes on the same coin. Why not a computer??

What would be the consistency starting point for the computer program?

I agree with Marks statement for the starting point of consistency. Sometimes people aren't sitting at the boards all day to respond to your question.

If you have an issue you would like to discuss, I am most happy to do so. Your Post seems a little haughty and derisive, but I can't imagine why.

Why would you feel the need to respond in a personal attack manner?

I did not ask you to respond at all. I am asking a question.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Feld is not the point of my question, nor the thrust of my Posts.

The agreement of the starting point is immaterial; it is arriving at a consensus of the starting point definition of consistency.

If you are offended because a Post you make begs a question, especially when it is about computer equality of the human eye, then I do not know how I can make amends.

The question remains:

What would be the consistency starting point of the computer program?

You can answer or not; whether and when you answer or not, does not negate the question.

It is not hard to be courteous.

In an interesting discussion of this nature, it is fun to pick and choose the Posts we would like to respond to and/or comment on, and avoid the questions that may be uncomfortable.

Sorry John, I may have taken this out of text. You had me in a quote asking about why consistency and I wasn't able to answer back til later. I thought the " avoid questions" comment may have been directed at my post. Apologize for the confusion!

For this, I am grateful. I realize that sometimes (a lot!) the manner in which I use words may appear to offend. I assure you, when I am on a quest of interest such as the present one, I can overpost and cause disgust in my fellow board members. But know this...I will never be intentionally discourteous.

You should know that I was aiming a calculated first strike launch at Mr. Feld with the words you took out of context. I am sure others read the words and felt I was being disrespectful or haughty toward Mr. Feld. Don't. Mr Feld knew what I was doing.....and I will be tested and called to pay for it (although he does ask for the weekend to arm his response weapons-he is getting a little old and slow lately)

I will fill you in that what is going on here is a logic posit exercise, one of many played out over the years, with Mr. Feld. They are always educational to me, and always immensely enjoyable. I can tell you he knows exactly what I am doing, makes me think and he makes me prove my logic positions with no mercy shown toward me, and he gives as good as he gets. I have not seen him throw the chess board to the floor or at the computer screen yet, so I like to fool myself into believing he enjoys the exchanges also. I am probably wrong, especially with my lack of numismatic knowledge, but I easily convince myself otherwise.

Thank you for your gentlemanly apology.

MarkFeld · August 31, 2013

Even though I don't submit, I think it would be nice if grading was consistent, but as Carl stated, no two people will see a coin the same way. I'm wondering if anyone will create a software program that can grade a coin?

are you being serious? or just joking?

last time someone tried that it turned out to be a disaster!!

remember COMPUGRADE?

Actually I was. We've had computer technology for years that can read a persons eye retina, read fingerprints, determine dna etc.... Why couldn't it be done for coins? People complain that the tpgs get coins wrong or they get a grade verified by another company that just uses different people to look at the coin. There's no consistency with different eyes on the same coin. Why not a computer??

What would be the consistency starting point for the computer program?

I agree with Marks statement for the starting point of consistency. Sometimes people aren't sitting at the boards all day to respond to your question.

If you have an issue you would like to discuss, I am most happy to do so. Your Post seems a little haughty and derisive, but I can't imagine why.

Why would you feel the need to respond in a personal attack manner?

I did not ask you to respond at all. I am asking a question.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Feld is not the point of my question, nor the thrust of my Posts.

The agreement of the starting point is immaterial; it is arriving at a consensus of the starting point definition of consistency.

If you are offended because a Post you make begs a question, especially when it is about computer equality of the human eye, then I do not know how I can make amends.

The question remains:

What would be the consistency starting point of the computer program?

You can answer or not; whether and when you answer or not, does not negate the question.

It is not hard to be courteous.

In an interesting discussion of this nature, it is fun to pick and choose the Posts we would like to respond to and/or comment on, and avoid the questions that may be uncomfortable.

Sorry John, I may have taken this out of text. You had me in a quote asking about why consistency and I wasn't able to answer back til later. I thought the " avoid questions" comment may have been directed at my post. Apologize for the confusion!

For this, I am grateful. I realize that sometimes (a lot!) the manner in which I use words may appear to offend. I assure you, when I am on a quest of interest such as the present one, I can overpost and cause disgust in my fellow board members. But know this...I will never be intentionally discourteous.

You should know that I was aiming a calculated first strike launch at Mr. Feld with the words you took out of context. I am sure others read the words and felt I was being disrespectful or haughty toward Mr. Feld. Don't. Mr Feld knew what I was doing.....and I will be tested and called to pay for it (although he does ask for the weekend to arm his response weapons-he is getting a little old and slow lately)

I will fill you in that what is going on here is a logic posit exercise, one of many played out over the years, with Mr. Feld. They are always educational to me, and always immensely enjoyable. I can tell you he knows exactly what I am doing, makes me think and he makes me prove my logic positions with no mercy shown toward me, and he gives as good as he gets. I have not seen him throw the chess board to the floor or at the computer screen yet, so I like to fool myself into believing he enjoys the exchanges also. I am probably wrong, especially with my lack of numismatic knowledge, but I easily convince myself otherwise.

Thank you for your gentlemanly apology.

Based on past experience, I can vouch for John that his first strike launch was aimed directly and only at me

But HE is the one who makes me think and HE makes me prove my logic positions with no mercy shown toward me, and HE gives as good as he gets.

He often asks tough questions whose answers require considerable thought and are not necessarily easily arrived at.

John, this thread has raised a number of questions and I, being old and slow, am easily overwhelmed. So, for whichever ones remain, can you hit me with one at a time, in whatever order you wish?

Thanks.

Kurtdog · September 2, 2013

Market grades change as markets change. Were we still just technical grading, we'd expect more consistency.

Coinbuf · September 2, 2013

A very interesting and thought provoking thread, thank you Mr Feld and Mr Curtis for a very interesting read. Getting back to the core question posed by Mark, I think that collectors do, dealers somewhat less so, and TPG's even less so. Most of this comes down to what drives the want, if you had a 100% system for grading then collectors would allways know that their 65 coin is the same as the other guy's 65. Dealers could live with this in some ways but this would make it difficult to up-sell. TPG's would be the most hard hit as a system like this would preclude any resubmissions and would be a significant hit to the bottom line. Resulting in unhappy executives (less bonus) and unhappy stockholders due to the resulting lower stock valueation.

But the issue you run into with all of this is eye appeal, no two people on the planet can ever agree on what this is or how to value it consistently. This element is the reason that consistency is fleeting because even if you acheive a starting point, and agree on technical grading, individual eye appeal cannot be standerdized.

MarkFeld · September 2, 2013

A very interesting and thought provoking thread, thank you Mr Feld and Mr Curtis for a very interesting read. Getting back to the core question posed by Mark, I think that collectors do, dealers somewhat less so, and TPG's even less so. Most of this comes down to what drives the want, if you had a 100% system for grading then collectors would allways know that their 65 coin is the same as the other guy's 65. Dealers could live with this in some ways but this would make it difficult to up-sell. TPG's would be the most hard hit as a system like this would preclude any resubmissions and would be a significant hit to the bottom line. Resulting in unhappy executives (less bonus) and unhappy stockholders due to the resulting lower stock valueation.

But the issue you run into with all of this is eye appeal, no two people on the planet can ever agree on what this is or how to value it consistently. This element is the reason that consistency is fleeting because even if you acheive a starting point, and agree on technical grading, individual eye appeal cannot be standerdized.

Thank you - I agree with you. And, while I doubt you even tried, you might have made a good case for removing eye-appeal from the grading equation.

Kurtdog · September 3, 2013

And, while I doubt you even tried, you might have made a good case for removing eye-appeal from the grading equation.

Oh my goodness, we couldn't have that. That would take all the nonsense out of grading.

Nutmeg Coin · September 6, 2013

As some have posited here, there should be a technological solution to the grading dilemma. Hover over a coin with a scanning device that uplinks to online databases and compares the image with all available quality images and comes up with where the image fits in the bell curve and grading standards; apples with apples comparisons. The day will arrive someday. What would a device like that be worth? $1500? $5000? Where there is profit potential there are entrepreneurs who will provide the technology and products.

jom · September 7, 2013

And, while I doubt you even tried, you might have made a good case for removing eye-appeal from the grading equation.

Oh my goodness, we couldn't have that. That would take all the nonsense out of grading.

It's certainly a good idea to consider but as much as removing eye appeal from the grading "equation" you'll never remove eye appeal from the VALUE equation. The market seems to want grade to equal value but that just isn't the case. People fight and complain and whine all of the time about it but the fact remains not all MS63s are the same and that funny little random variable that creates the price variation is eye appeal.

And the market also demands to have precision within the grades (63, 63+, 63 star, 63FB...etc etc) and the TPGs have tried (a good effort to be sure). But in my mind that is really an impossible precedent. You simply cannot have precision in an environment that is inherently inaccurate due to the subjectivity of grading.

It's a tough issue...then when you add in the possible conflict of interest I suggested in my earlier post it makes it that much more difficult.

jom

Conder101 · September 7, 2013

I'm wondering if anyone will create a software program that can grade a coin?

last time someone tried that it turned out to be a disaster!!
remember COMPUGRADE?

And don't forget PCGS's Expert System that came out the same time. There were also two other companies working on the process as well. And that was 22 years ago.

And the computer programs were consistant, send a coin through as manytimes are you wanted and you always got the same grade out. Problem was the two programs were not consistant with each other, and the inconsistent humans didn't agree with either one. So they kept the humans and got rid of the programs. But frankly I think the real reason they junked the programs was because the TPG's don't really want consistent unchanging grading. Other than new issues I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the revenue for grading the older coins comes from coins that have passed through their hands more than once.

Kurtdog · September 7, 2013

And, while I doubt you even tried, you might have made a good case for removing eye-appeal from the grading equation.

Oh my goodness, we couldn't have that. That would take all the nonsense out of grading.

It's certainly a good idea to consider but as much as removing eye appeal from the grading "equation" you'll never remove eye appeal from the VALUE equation. The market seems to want grade to equal value but that just isn't the case. People fight and complain and whine all of the time about it but the fact remains not all MS63s are the same and that funny little random variable that creates the price variation is eye appeal.

And the market also demands to have precision within the grades (63, 63+, 63 star, 63FB...etc etc) and the TPGs have tried (a good effort to be sure). But in my mind that is really an impossible precedent. You simply cannot have precision in an environment that is inherently inaccurate due to the subjectivity of grading.

It's a tough issue...then when you add in the possible conflict of interest I suggested in my earlier post it makes it that much more difficult.

jom

All of which comes down to, Jom, these are appraisals, not grades. That's what "market grades" are, appraisals. Let's quit kidding ourselves they're grades.

jom · September 10, 2013

All of which comes down to, Jom, these are appraisals, not grades. That's what "market grades" are, appraisals. Let's quit kidding ourselves they're grades.

I agree with them being appraisals. But couldn't it be argued that appraisal and grading are same thing?