FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM...... PART 3

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "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." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

I totally agree with this and with the very succinct definition. On strike as well as luster for that matter technical grading doesn't regard those factors although the ANA has always recognized they can influence the market value of the coin. Enter market grading and those are market grading factors. As far as eye appeal goes, that's at the heart of market grading, as much as condition after the minting of the coin is indeed at the heart of technical grading.

The purpose of grading is to describe the relative state of a coin and if we begin to ignore strike and luster (and pretty much everything else other than surface preservation and wear), it seems that grading would become a trivial/worthless exercise. Let's look at a series that is notorious for some pretty horrendous strikes (e.g. early Walking Liberty Half Dollars). Are we going to say that a coin who is technically uncirculated but possesses the design detail of a coin in the good to fine range is of an equivalent grade to a sharply struck mint state coin? And I'm not strictly basing this on value, but the overall condition of the coin (even ignoring eye appeal) is not equivalent in my opinion. By your argument, a coin with the slightest impression of the main design, but otherwise closely approximates a blank planchet would grade the same as any other mint state piece. The problem is especially important for mint state coins, but also, what about for AU coins? Sometimes the difference on those is the degree of luster disturbance that might otherwise not appear to be typical wear. Would we call these high end sliders mint state (if we ignore luster of course)?

 

I can see some arguing that eye appeal should be a small factor and that toning, for example, should not increase a coin's market grade due to enormous variation in tastes and valuation; however, I cannot see someone ignoring pretty much everything other than surface preservation.

 

Grading in any hobby has always had to do with condition or state of preservation, Kenny. That's what you're not understanding. Market grading? That has to do with markets, and marketing. What's the grade of a note? It's the condition or state of preservation of the note. What's the grade of a stamp, a sports card, a comic book? It's the condition or state of preservation of those items. What's market grading? It's markets, and marketing, which influences markets. It's an appraisal of the value of the item, not an assessment of the shape the item is in. Does the market demand a crisp strike, and booming luster? Then those criteria raise the market grade. Has marketing influenced many if not most collectors that the TPGs can differentiate NT from AT even though nobody yet can define those purely arbitrary terms? Then NT market grades, and, when it's eye appealing, it raises the market grade. Pedigree raises the market grade for much the same reason Perrier sells for $4.00 a bottle while seltzer sells for only $0.25. Can you imagine a guy in a nightclub with his girl, "Darling, I love you, you're my whole life, I can't live without you...would you like a glass of seltzer?" There are collectors who get off on status symbols. If they gave away free balloons, that would raise the market grade. Well, OK, maybe that's a spot extreme.

 

Would you concur that the market grading first starts with determining the tecnical grading, then moves on to other factor evaluations?

 

The Standards of ANA, PCGS, NGC, ETC. (and CAC ) would seem to indicate this. I don't think technical graders ignore the other mentioned factors at all. It seems to be more of how the other factors are important to the individual. Do you think that it may be more of a case of individual opinion, and whether or not the non-technical factors, and the individual's opinion as to the weight of added calories for consumption of the added factors, are worth the calories?

 

I like Brownies. I like Brownies with Icing. I like Brownies with Sprinkles. The plain Brownies look good, look better with Icing, and better still with Sprinkles. but, they are all still Brownies. My friend doesn't like the Sprinkles. he thinks that is too much eye candy. My other friend likes Brownies with Sprinkles inside the batter, but doesn't like Icing. My other friend likes only Icing on the Brownies. All four of us agree that the Brownie is the important thing, and the rest is individual opinion and taste. The funny thing is, the Bakery down the street doesn't add or deduct from the Brownies that do or don't have Icing and/or Sprinkles. The Bakery knows that everybody has different opinions, and no one opinion is correct, so he gets a pretty good share of the Brownie buyers since he charges the same for all varieties.

 

However, the Bakery in the next Town down the highway adds cost for uprgrading the Brownie: +1 for Icing or Sprinkles, and +2 for Icing and Sprinkles. Both locations do a pretty good business.

[MarkFeld]

Nice point Kurtdog. To follow that, for example, I am coming to believe after submitting my 10 seated coins to CAC that there is a particular bias they have as to what constitutes NT vs. AT and are making judgements of deciding which coins are A and B in part because of this. After studying heritage archives, it appears as if there is a fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning. I did a test once by setting out several uncirculated washington quarters on a bookshelf for a year. Each one toned in a completely different way. This tells me that the line between NT and AT in many cases, or what graders consider, is not so clear. I believe at the present at least, that TPG's and CAC err on the side of caution with respect to this issue. So many nicely toned coins may not get the bean simply because of their toning, for which some, including TDN here, points out that could have been a key factor in the 76-CC decision. So as long as CAC is recognized as the elite team for determining quality for a coin, it will determine the market value and some coins perceived not to be within that range of quality will be penalized, rightly or wrongly......

 

Best, HT

 

The determination of what constitutes an A or B coin vs. a C coin is often a separate matter from whether a coin is considered NT or AT. And the "fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning" that you have observed in auction archives, is likely merely that which a large majority of informed numismatists would consider to be NT.

 

While many people complain that the grading companies reject a lot of NT coins as AT, many others complain that the grading companies tolerate a lot of AT coins as NT.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

[FranklinHalfAddict]

I'm coming into this thread late so I will post before reading any replies.

My very first thought was nice coin overall. Attractive color and surfaces.

Upon further examination there are several noticeable marks. The first one being the dimple you mentioned, also the mark on the right breast. There are also noticeable marks on her chin, neck, left arm, left breast, and on the lower section of her dress/drapery. There are also more smaller ticks scattered throughout the bust. The strike isn't great. There are also die cracks near the date and Libertys cap. The luster looks nice and the color is also nice.

Onto the reverse.

Again, weak strike. There are few very minor rim ticks. The color is great and the luster appears more noticeable here than on the obverse.

 

The first two coins you posted were a lot easier to guess. I'm on the fence with this one. I think it could really go either way but I'll say it got the sticker this time.

[Hard Times]

Nice point Kurtdog. To follow that, for example, I am coming to believe after submitting my 10 seated coins to CAC that there is a particular bias they have as to what constitutes NT vs. AT and are making judgements of deciding which coins are A and B in part because of this. After studying heritage archives, it appears as if there is a fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning. I did a test once by setting out several uncirculated washington quarters on a bookshelf for a year. Each one toned in a completely different way. This tells me that the line between NT and AT in many cases, or what graders consider, is not so clear. I believe at the present at least, that TPG's and CAC err on the side of caution with respect to this issue. So many nicely toned coins may not get the bean simply because of their toning, for which some, including TDN here, points out that could have been a key factor in the 76-CC decision. So as long as CAC is recognized as the elite team for determining quality for a coin, it will determine the market value and some coins perceived not to be within that range of quality will be penalized, rightly or wrongly......

 

Best, HT

 

The determination of what constitutes an A or B coin vs. a C coin is often a separate matter from whether a coin is considered NT or AT. And the "fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning" that you have observed in auction archives, is likely merely that which a large majority of informed numismatists would consider to be NT.

 

While many people complain that the grading companies reject a lot of NT coins as AT, many others complain that the grading companies tolerate a lot of AT coins as NT.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Mark I don't even know where to begin. There is no such thing as an informed numismatist when it comes to toned coins. No chance that you, me,or anyone at all, has seen how every single coin has toned. No chance at all. So there is no way you, me, or anyone can hope to decide for most coins what is NT and what is AT.

 

MHO is that 'informed numismatists' have decided, with very limited evidence, what the look of an NT coin is, and what the look of an AT coin is. If a coin has the look the 'informed numismatists' have decided is NT, it gets the grade or the bean. Even if the 'informed coin-doctor' really created that toning. But the truth is, unless the 'informed numismatist' has happened to be sitting next to every single coin for the past two centuries and can thereby witness the history of each coin all that time, they simply have zero chance in knowing whether a coin is NT or AT. And sadly, the only science involved to test and prove what is NT or AT are the doctors and the experimenters who are thus better informed than most of us,and who typically are not the 'informed numismatists' that are for the most part doing the grading at these companies.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

Mark,

Below is an example of non-market acceptable toning. When I first joined these boards I posted this and asked folks whether it was NT or AT (prior to revealing an image with the label), some answered AT some answered NT, including some I would consider 'informed numismatists answered NT. In this case I know exactly how this toning was produced - I did it in a old cardboard coin album, a Mercury Dime album, green in color and produced by Meghrig I bought on ebay. It took 3 years, but it toned up nicely. I have seen many coins like this in TPG holders with grades. Who is to say that this is a doctored coin as I used the traditional old holder method to tone it, and in natural conditions, no chemicals added, no manipulation, just letting it sit there in this holder for 3 years. Same with my washington quarters sitting on the wooden shelf, some have likely market acceptable toning, some have what would probably not be market acceptable. But all toned naturally, exposed to air only, sitting on a bookshelf for a year. Now the toning on the dime below is somewhat similar to the toning on the 76-cc quarter in a graded TPG holder. How did that coin get its toning? I have no idea, I bought it from a well known seated dealer (DORC) at a show in an old NGC holder that was scuffed up and slabbed well before I started collecting. So again, market drivers out there are apparently making judgements as to what is acceptable toning and what is not. One year a certain look is market acceptable, the next year it is not and won't get a grade. TDN mentioned that JA likely was concerned about he toning of the 76-cc. So did it tone in an old holder like my merc below, but does not have the look considered market acceptable today, or was it doctored. And what does that say about any toned coin? So again, CAC is making decisions on which looks are right, which are wrong, and I argue that no one has the scientific or observational evidence to be an informed numismatist with respect to this issue so that they are erring on the side of caution.

 

Best, HT

 

[coinman_23885]

Grading in any hobby has always had to do with condition or state of preservation, Kenny. That's what you're not understanding. Market grading?

 

I understand the market grading concept. I am challenging those who are asserting that technical grade requires us to ignore the strike and luster of a coin and focus solely on wear and surface preservation. I think all of these are components of both technical grading and market grading, and assuming we ignore luster and strike, then technical grading has little, if any, meaning. That's what I am saying.

 

So as I understand it:

 

Technical grading: Surface preservation + wear + strike + luster

Market Grading = Technical Grading + emphasis on eye appeal and relative value of coins

[MarkFeld]

Nice point Kurtdog. To follow that, for example, I am coming to believe after submitting my 10 seated coins to CAC that there is a particular bias they have as to what constitutes NT vs. AT and are making judgements of deciding which coins are A and B in part because of this. After studying heritage archives, it appears as if there is a fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning. I did a test once by setting out several uncirculated washington quarters on a bookshelf for a year. Each one toned in a completely different way. This tells me that the line between NT and AT in many cases, or what graders consider, is not so clear. I believe at the present at least, that TPG's and CAC err on the side of caution with respect to this issue. So many nicely toned coins may not get the bean simply because of their toning, for which some, including TDN here, points out that could have been a key factor in the 76-CC decision. So as long as CAC is recognized as the elite team for determining quality for a coin, it will determine the market value and some coins perceived not to be within that range of quality will be penalized, rightly or wrongly......

 

Best, HT

 

The determination of what constitutes an A or B coin vs. a C coin is often a separate matter from whether a coin is considered NT or AT. And the "fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning" that you have observed in auction archives, is likely merely that which a large majority of informed numismatists would consider to be NT.

 

While many people complain that the grading companies reject a lot of NT coins as AT, many others complain that the grading companies tolerate a lot of AT coins as NT.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Mark I don't even know where to begin. There is no such thing as an informed numismatist when it comes to toned coins. No chance that you, me,or anyone at all, has seen how every single coin has toned. No chance at all. So there is no way you, me, or anyone can hope to decide for most coins what is NT and what is AT.

 

MHO is that 'informed numismatists' have decided, with very limited evidence, what the look of an NT coin is, and what the look of an AT coin is. If a coin has the look the 'informed numismatists' have decided is NT, it gets the grade or the bean. Even if the 'informed coin-doctor' really created that toning. But the truth is, unless the 'informed numismatist' has happened to be sitting next to every single coin for the past two centuries and can thereby witness the history of each coin all that time, they simply have zero chance in knowing whether a coin is NT or AT. And sadly, the only science involved to test and prove what is NT or AT are the doctors and the experimenters who are thus better informed than most of us,and who typically are not the 'informed numismatists' that are for the most part doing the grading at these companies.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Best, HT

 

We will have to agree to disagree whether there are "informed numismatists" regarding toned coins.

 

I believe that there are a good many, whose opinions are highly qualified, based on a great deal of experience, and whose opinions justifiably carry a great deal of weight. And they need not have seen "how every single coin has toned" in order to be "informed numismatists" with respect to toned coins.

 

Likewise, I have seen/heard people say that grading is subjective and just an opinion. I agree, in part with that. But some grading opinions are still far more informed and expert than (most) others.

[coinman_23885]

The purpose of grading is to describe the relative state of a coin

 

Incorrect. The more accurate statement would be "The purpose of market grading is to describe the relative value of a coin." ... technical grader would ignore these and apply the same standards to all coins.

 

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I am saying that the purpose of assigning grades generally (regardless of whether technical or market grading is used) is to describe the quality of the coin (using either strict state of preservation or market value depending on the scheme used) so that collectors can immediately glean useful information that allows them to describe and compare coins. For instance, if coin A is a technical MS65 and coin B is a technical MS60, even the technical grade tells use something about the quality of coin A relative to (i.e. compared to) coin B. If this is not the case, then what is the point of grading? Why even use short hand adjectives/grades? I should be able to distinguish between quality between two grades regardless of whether technical grading is used or not.

 

 

 

and if we begin to ignore strike and luster (and pretty much everything else other than surface preservation and wear), it seems that grading would become a trivial/worthless exercise.

 

The focus of technical grading is its level of preservation after it leaves the mint. That is by no means a trivial excercise.

 

My understanding is that auction descriptions and numismatic periodicals in the 19th century differed enormously between their used of adjective qualifiers/grades in describing coins. One man's good was another man's very fine/extremely fine, etc. The purpose of having a standardized grading system was to provide a short hand so that collectors could compare coins both for numismatic periodicals/books and for auction descriptions. As such, what would be the point of technical grading at all if two coins of vastly differing quality would be treated as equivalent? If coin "A" has a strike so weak that it has the design detail of a good coin and coin "B" has a sharp strike, but both otherwise have no wear and equal surface preservation, I think it would be pointless to describe them both as "MS63" or whatever arbitrary number you would want to throw out. What utility would even assigning numbers have if the quality of the coins was not comparable?

 

In short, I think those arguing that technical grading requires collectors to ignore luster and strike are taking things too far and it would render technical grading worthless IMO. If you can think of utility of the grading system that you describe, I would love to hear it.

 

The problem is especially important for mint state coins, but also, what about for AU coins? Sometimes the difference on those is the degree of luster disturbance that might otherwise not appear to be typical wear. Would we call these high end sliders mint state (if we ignore luster of course)?

 

Technical graders hate when sliders magically become MS coins. With sufficient practice and experience, you can tell when the high points have wear. "

 

Yes, I understand how to detect high point wear; however, not all AU coins have wear on their highest points. There are a number of sliders where the slightest rub in the field, detectable as a small luster disturbance could mean the difference between a technical AU58 and a mint state coin (despite the fact that a good number of these are probably market graded into the MS range). If we are to ignore luster all together as Mr. Halperin was suggesting, would this coin not technically be a mint state coin notwithstanding the small luster disturbance?

 

I can see some arguing that eye appeal should be a small factor and that toning, for example, should not increase a coin's market grade due to enormous variation in tastes and valuation; however, I cannot see someone ignoring pretty much everything other than surface preservation.

 

The relative weighting of different factors is a matter that will never be settled. Even with published "standards" like the ANA, everyone will always interpret them differently. Just no way around that.

 

Fair enough.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Grading in any hobby has always had to do with condition or state of preservation, Kenny. That's what you're not understanding. Market grading?

 

I understand the market grading concept. I am challenging those who are asserting that technical grade requires us to ignore the strike and luster of a coin and focus solely on wear and surface preservation. I think all of these are components of both technical grading and market grading, and assuming we ignore luster and strike, then technical grading has little, if any, meaning. That's what I am saying.

 

So as I understand it:

 

Technical grading: Surface preservation + wear + strike + luster

Market Grading = Technical Grading + emphasis on eye appeal and relative value of coins

 

I personally have never encountered a person that asserts technical grading requires ignoring strike and luster and eye appeal of the coin and focus only on wear and surface preservation. I certainly have not encountered every coin collector, but I will state with confidence that If a person is first applying technical grading when evaluating a coin, that is the right thing to do. The person can then apply any further opinion that the person deems important. The general public may or may not agree. However, I have seen just the opposite many times: ignoring the technical grade and focusing strictly on eye appeal and strike and luster.

 

The market grading concept is a business Model, and like all good business Models, it serves a useful purpose for the general good of the community, while maintaining a profit center. Relative value is just that, relative. It may be correct, it may not. The market determines the final value. I don't look at the issue as us against them. The more information the better.

 

If a coin doesn't have luster and doesn't have a good strike, a well worn circulated coin, for example, the technical grading is the only thing left that has meaning. Would you not agree?

[coinman_23885]

I personally have never encountered a person that asserts technical grading requires ignoring strike and luster and eye appeal of the coin and focus only on wear and surface preservation. I certainly have not encountered every coin collector, but I will state with confidence that If a person is first applying technical grading when evaluating a coin, that is the right thing to do. The person can then apply any further opinion that the person deems important. The general public may or may not agree. However, I have seen just the opposite many times: ignoring the technical grade and focusing strictly on eye appeal and strike and luster.

 

The market grading concept is a business Model, and like all good business Models, it serves a useful purpose for the general good of the community, while maintaining a profit center. Relative value is just that, relative. It may be correct, it may not. The market determines the final value. I don't look at the issue as us against them. The more information the better.

 

If a coin doesn't have luster and doesn't have a good strike, a well worn circulated coin, for example, the technical grading is the only thing left that has meaning. Would you not agree?

 

Coins grading below EF tend not to have any original mint luster remaining. This is not to say that technical grading (especially at a higher grade) does not require an assessment of luster; it is an issue of there being no luster left to assess at those grade levels. Those are two different things in my opinion. And, with this said, I do agree that my analysis is biased towards mint state coins and AU coins (those that I tend to collect) and to some degree high grade EF coins; I don't dispute that are differences between grading lower grade circulated coins and mint state coins, but it doesn't change the nature of technical grading IMO.

 

With regards to weak strike and wear, this is often difficult to tease apart at lower grades because there is no luster to provide clues whether the loss of detail is due to strike or wear. In some cases, however, a weak strike is apparent even in lower grade circulated coins. The fact that strike is less emphasized at those grade levels does not necessarily say anything about the higher grade levels.

 

With regards to the rest of your comments, I agree and take no issue with anything that you have posted. I also had never encountered a collector or dealer (before this thread) that suggested that technical grading requires us to ignore both mint luster and strike.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I personally have never encountered a person that asserts technical grading requires ignoring strike and luster and eye appeal of the coin and focus only on wear and surface preservation. I certainly have not encountered every coin collector, but I will state with confidence that If a person is first applying technical grading when evaluating a coin, that is the right thing to do. The person can then apply any further opinion that the person deems important. The general public may or may not agree. However, I have seen just the opposite many times: ignoring the technical grade and focusing strictly on eye appeal and strike and luster.

 

The market grading concept is a business Model, and like all good business Models, it serves a useful purpose for the general good of the community, while maintaining a profit center. Relative value is just that, relative. It may be correct, it may not. The market determines the final value. I don't look at the issue as us against them. The more information the better.

 

If a coin doesn't have luster and doesn't have a good strike, a well worn circulated coin, for example, the technical grading is the only thing left that has meaning. Would you not agree?

 

Coins grading below EF tend not to have any original mint luster remaining. This is not to say that technical grading does not require an assessment of luster; it is an issue of there being no luster left to assess. Those are two different things in my opinion. And, with this said, I do agree that my analysis is biased towards mint state coins and AU coins (those that I tend to collect) and to some degree high grade EF coins; I don't dispute that are differences between grading lower grade circulated coins and mint state coins, but it doesn't change the nature of technical grading IMO.

 

With regards to the rest of your comments, I agree and take no issue with anything that you have posted. I also had never encountered a collector or dealer (before this thread) that suggested that technical grading requires us to ignore both mint luster and strike.

 

(thumbs u

 

As clarification, my example of a well worn coin was to limit the application of luster in this Thread as required on all graded coins. I knew you would agree, but thought clarification for others that may not be as experienced should receive the benefit of clarification, to be able to put your very useful comments in the correct perspective.

[AnkurJ]

No sticker. Looks AT.

[physics-fan3.14]

These CAC threads have been some of the best threads on this forum in a while. Keep them coming, we're ready for the next one!

[Hard Times]

Nice point Kurtdog. To follow that, for example, I am coming to believe after submitting my 10 seated coins to CAC that there is a particular bias they have as to what constitutes NT vs. AT and are making judgements of deciding which coins are A and B in part because of this. After studying heritage archives, it appears as if there is a fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning. I did a test once by setting out several uncirculated washington quarters on a bookshelf for a year. Each one toned in a completely different way. This tells me that the line between NT and AT in many cases, or what graders consider, is not so clear. I believe at the present at least, that TPG's and CAC err on the side of caution with respect to this issue. So many nicely toned coins may not get the bean simply because of their toning, for which some, including TDN here, points out that could have been a key factor in the 76-CC decision. So as long as CAC is recognized as the elite team for determining quality for a coin, it will determine the market value and some coins perceived not to be within that range of quality will be penalized, rightly or wrongly......

 

Best, HT

 

The determination of what constitutes an A or B coin vs. a C coin is often a separate matter from whether a coin is considered NT or AT. And the "fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning" that you have observed in auction archives, is likely merely that which a large majority of informed numismatists would consider to be NT.

 

While many people complain that the grading companies reject a lot of NT coins as AT, many others complain that the grading companies tolerate a lot of AT coins as NT.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Mark I don't even know where to begin. There is no such thing as an informed numismatist when it comes to toned coins. No chance that you, me,or anyone at all, has seen how every single coin has toned. No chance at all. So there is no way you, me, or anyone can hope to decide for most coins what is NT and what is AT.

 

MHO is that 'informed numismatists' have decided, with very limited evidence, what the look of an NT coin is, and what the look of an AT coin is. If a coin has the look the 'informed numismatists' have decided is NT, it gets the grade or the bean. Even if the 'informed coin-doctor' really created that toning. But the truth is, unless the 'informed numismatist' has happened to be sitting next to every single coin for the past two centuries and can thereby witness the history of each coin all that time, they simply have zero chance in knowing whether a coin is NT or AT. And sadly, the only science involved to test and prove what is NT or AT are the doctors and the experimenters who are thus better informed than most of us,and who typically are not the 'informed numismatists' that are for the most part doing the grading at these companies.

 

So I can't put a great deal of faith in your conclusions.

 

Best, HT

 

We will have to agree to disagree whether there are "informed numismatists" regarding toned coins.

 

I believe that there are a good many, whose opinions are highly qualified, based on a great deal of experience, and whose opinions justifiably carry a great deal of weight. And they need not have seen "how every single coin has toned" in order to be "informed numismatists" with respect to toned coins.

 

Likewise, I have seen/heard people say that grading is subjective and just an opinion. I agree, in part with that. But some grading opinions are still far more informed and expert than (most) others.

 

Good points Mark, I am not sure we are too far off in our disagreement actually and I was taking the most extreme view in my rebuttal I confess, but my point was simply some coins may tone naturally and look by some to be AT. There is a grey area and right now, TPGs and CAC are erring on the side of caution. That may not be a bad thing in most cases.

 

Thanks Jason, I will try to post the next one tonite and I agree with you these are interesting and I hope others post threads about their CAC evaluated coins as well, I learn alot from all posts discussing these coins.

 

Best, HT

[Kurtdog]

Would you concur that the market grading first starts with determining the tecnical grading, then moves on to other factor evaluations?

You'll have to ask the market graders. I know this much. PCGS doesn't even have a definition of technical grading in their coin glossary. That's how little they understand it.

 

[Kurtdog]

I understand the market grading concept. I am challenging those who are asserting that technical grade requires us to ignore the strike and luster of a coin and focus solely on wear and surface preservation. I think all of these are components of both technical grading and market grading, and assuming we ignore luster and strike, then technical grading has little, if any, meaning. That's what I am saying.

Have you ever wondered how a coin measures up to when it was minted? If you ever have you understand what the technical grade is and its significance. You understand technical grading criteria isn't opinion but rather observable fact rationally-related to the coin's condition as rated against when the coin was minted. You understand the ANA simply rounded up and categorized that technical grading criteria for us, in grades. You understand strike and luster are irrelevant to the technical grade, as every series of Morgan Dollar, e.g., didn't start out as a series 1881-S. And, that's it, that's technical grading. In a nut.

[coinman_23885]

Have you ever wondered how a coin measures up to when it was minted? If you ever have you understand what the technical grade is and its significance.

 

Is luster then not a valid consideration? Luster is present from striking onward and can depreciate just as much as a coin's surfaces or design detail in the case of wear. If the above considerations constitute your litmus test for what "technical grading" is, then I think you are wrong to ignore luster.

 

(And if you counter by arguing that strike and luster are not equal during the striking process for all coins (as you seem to suggest/imply later in your post), you also fail to consider that not all surfaces are created equally at striking either. Sometimes not all of the marks are removed from a planchet when the coin is struck and planchet roughness is an issue for some series such as Jefferson Nickels. Not all coins start out with the same level of surface preservation either, but I don't see you using that as an argument that we ignore the surfaces).

 

You understand technical grading criteria isn't opinion but rather observable fact rationally-related to the coin's condition as rated against when the coin was minted.

 

You think that technical grading isn't subjective and opinion based? I think you are wrong.

 

Considerations that are subjective include questions such as the following:

 

1) How should I grade a coin with clean surfaces but one major abrasion in a prime focal area compared to one with several abrasions that are smaller? Should they be graded equally?

 

2) How do I grade a coin with an uneven wear pattern such that some portions of the coin are in the VF detail range and others in the EF detail range? At one point should the grade gravitate toward the VF range or the EF range? (There was a recent coin posted here that should illustrate my position nicely).

 

Also, since you maintain that technical grade includes wear considerations (and I agree with you), how does one distinguish between wear and a weak strike on higher graded AU coins and mint state coins? For me the answer is to look for luster disturbances, but since luster is not relevant in your opinion, it strikes me that you would have a conundrum on your hands in many cases (i.e. is this coin truly mint state?).

 

 

You understand the ANA simply rounded up and categorized that technical grading criteria for us, in grades.

 

But the ANA seems to agree with me on luster and strike considerations.

 

You understand strike and luster are irrelevant to the technical grade, as every series of Morgan Dollar, e.g., didn't start out as a series 1881-S. And, that's it, that's technical grading. In a nut.

 

No, I don't see how luster and strike are irrelevant, and I could care less if every coin doesn't come with a sharp strike or not. If it the case that the highest grade because of strike considerations is a MS64 or so, then so be it.

 

 

 

 

On another note, even though Physics and I disagree on a good bit here, I do think he is accurate when he describes most grading schemes as a hybrid between technical grading and market grading. I will admit that my personal standards are a hybrid as well. I do consider eye appeal to some degree, but I wouldn't weigh it as heavily as some of the services do (i.e. PCGS going on record as saying that toning should add up to two points to the coin's grade. So while I think market grading in its purest form is problematic, I think technical grading also has its issues. I am somewhere between the two extremes.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Would you concur that the market grading first starts with determining the tecnical grading, then moves on to other factor evaluations?

You'll have to ask the market graders. I know this much. PCGS doesn't even have a definition of technical grading in their coin glossary. That's how little they understand it.

 

Chapter 3: Grading Techniques And Technical Grading

 

Excerpt (from pg.21 of Chapter 3):

 

"Technical Versus Market Grading"

 

"As the name suggests, "technical" grading is a process of evaluation that considers only the degree to which a coin does or does not meet objective, hard and fast guidelines for a given grade level."

 

In the Glossary, "technical grading" is on pg. 405 - the very first reference on the page.

 

Copyright 1997,2004.

2nd Edition March 2004, 1st Printing.

[Kurtdog]

Kenny, you're not reading what I said. If you are reading it, you're not comprehending it. If you are comprehending it, your replies to it are non-responsive. Let me show you just one example of that. I don't have the time to show you every one.

 

Take just this one example.This is what I said:

 

"You understand technical grading criteria isn't opinion but rather observable fact rationally-related to the coin's condition as rated against when the coin was minted."

 

This is what you said, in reply to that, to set up the lecture that followed:

 

"You think that technical grading isn't subjective and opinion based? I think you are wrong."

 

In all fairness, did I say that? Did I say, " think technical grading isn't subjective and opinion based?" Or, did you miss the qualifier imposed in my sentence, namely, "criteria?" Did you omit that I was talking about technical grading "criteria" and was saying that "criteria" observed and categorized by the ANA is fact? The way the ANA says a coin wears is based on fact. Do you have an issue with that? Give me a chance, in a responsive reply. I never said the grade isn't subjective or opinion based. The ANA doesn't tell us what weights to assign to the "criteria" in assessing the grade, and often times those "criteria" are competing. Do you want to lecture us on opinion and subjectivity in grading? There's where you want to start, with the weighting of the "criteria." The "criteria," itself, is observable fact. There's very, very little room, there, for opinion.

 

I'd go into luster, but I don't have the time. Suffice it here to say the degree (operative word) of luster is irrelevant to the technical grade simply because that grade is an effort to classify within the series, and not all series begin with the same degree of luster, or, for that matter, with the same quality of strike. Thus, if you require a degree of luster or quality of strike that was never present in the series to begin with, what are you "grading" your coin against? Nothing. You're simply making a subjective statement in reference to how eye appealing the coin is. That's no "grade." Or, rather, it's what we call, a "market grade."

[Kurtdog]

Would you concur that the market grading first starts with determining the tecnical grading, then moves on to other factor evaluations?

You'll have to ask the market graders. I know this much. PCGS doesn't even have a definition of technical grading in their coin glossary. That's how little they understand it.

Chapter 3: Grading Techniques And Technical Grading

 

Excerpt (from pg.21 of Chapter 3):

 

"Technical Versus Market Grading"

 

"As the name suggests, "technical" grading is a process of evaluation that considers only the degree to which a coin does or does not meet objective, hard and fast guidelines for a given grade level."

 

In the Glossary, "technical grading" is on pg. 405 - the very first reference on the page.

 

Copyright 1997,2004.

2nd Edition March 2004, 1st Printing.

Is this PCGS? It's not bad. I stand corrected, then. I'll deal with it, somehow, . FWIW, I was looking at their "lingo" page.

 

[coinman1794]

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

 

 

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

 

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "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." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

 

I would say, based on this definition, that luster is definitely included. It is part of the minted coin, and one of the aspects that can be affected by things happening to it after it was struck. A grader is looking for how the luster might have been disturbed, changed, worn off, etc. I also think that many technical graders do evaluate strike, but not always.

 

Halperin may even be referring to those who seem to focus on nothing but surface marks, not necessarily as a science, but as a type of incomplete, compulsive evaluation process in which nothing else matters but surface marks.