Will "MS-71" have to be invented?

[MarkFeld]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That's a good question/suggestion.

 

 

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment.

I think that's a good starting point for sure.

 

 

 

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

If the ANA standards are not adequate, then they ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague. I don't think discarding them is necessary.

 

 

 

I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved.

I am in agreement. If there's a will, there is almost certainly a way.

 

 

 

.

 

Please show me how the standards below "ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague" in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two grades in question. And please do so, without the changes causing one or both of those grading standards to become indistinguishable (on a practical basis) from other grades, currently a point higher than 66 and lower than 65. There are an infinite number of combinations of flaws that can and do appear on coins. Ditto for combinations of patina, strikes, luster, etc.

 

"MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. Copper coins display full original or lightly toned color as appropriate.

 

"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as appropriate."

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That's a good question/suggestion.

 

 

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment.

I think that's a good starting point for sure.

 

 

 

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

If the ANA standards are not adequate, then they ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague. I don't think discarding them is necessary.

 

 

 

I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved.

I am in agreement. If there's a will, there is almost certainly a way.

 

 

 

.

 

Please show me how the standards below "ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague" in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two grades in question. And please do so, without the changes causing one or both of those grading standards to become indistinguishable (on a practical basis) from other grades, currently a point higher than 66 and lower than 65. There are an infinite number of combinations of flaws that can and do appear on coins. Ditto for combinations of patina, strikes, luster, etc.

 

"MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. Copper coins display full original or lightly toned color as appropriate.

 

"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as appropriate."

 

Good Morning, Mark.

 

This is a very good example to support my position that graders should have the minimum qualifications I have previously suggested. Without those very basic minimum abilities, how can they grade in the present environment, market or technical?

 

You have validated the other aspect of my position, in that your example illustrates the need .....now......to establish a clear and precise standard instead of the unregulated wild west that has evolved.

 

I would ask the same of a grader that is determining any difference in the present environment....exactly what is your standard of rigorous definition of the difference between the grades in order to arrive at the conclusion of the decision rendered.

 

It is not enough to opine "I might not be able to define it but I know it when I see it". The decision made economically impacts the public.

 

How did and do you determine the difference? What clear standard do you use?

[MarkFeld]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That's a good question/suggestion.

 

 

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment.

I think that's a good starting point for sure.

 

 

 

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

If the ANA standards are not adequate, then they ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague. I don't think discarding them is necessary.

 

 

 

I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved.

I am in agreement. If there's a will, there is almost certainly a way.

 

 

 

.

 

Please show me how the standards below "ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague" in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two grades in question. And please do so, without the changes causing one or both of those grading standards to become indistinguishable (on a practical basis) from other grades, currently a point higher than 66 and lower than 65. There are an infinite number of combinations of flaws that can and do appear on coins. Ditto for combinations of patina, strikes, luster, etc.

 

"MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. Copper coins display full original or lightly toned color as appropriate.

 

"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as appropriate."

 

Good Morning, Mark.

 

This is a very good example to support my position that graders should have the minimum qualifications I have previously suggested. Without those very basic minimum abilities, how can they grade in the present environment, market or technical?

 

You have validated the other aspect of my position, in that your example illustrates the need .....now......to establish a clear and precise standard instead of the unregulated wild west that has evolved.

 

I would ask the same of a grader that is determining any difference in the present environment....exactly what is your standard of rigorous definition of the difference between the grades in order to arrive at the conclusion of the decision rendered.

 

It is not enough to opine "I might not be able to define it but I know it when I see it". The decision made economically impacts the public.

 

How did and do you determine the difference? What clear standard do you use?

 

John, I believe you inferred previously, that the ANA standards were objective. Either way, based on the grade definitions I posted, do you feel that way?

 

I didn't use a "clear standard" because there isn't one and I don't see how there could be one, which would be practical.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That's a good question/suggestion.

 

 

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment.

I think that's a good starting point for sure.

 

 

 

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

If the ANA standards are not adequate, then they ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague. I don't think discarding them is necessary.

 

 

 

I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved.

I am in agreement. If there's a will, there is almost certainly a way.

 

 

 

.

 

Please show me how the standards below "ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague" in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two grades in question. And please do so, without the changes causing one or both of those grading standards to become indistinguishable (on a practical basis) from other grades, currently a point higher than 66 and lower than 65. There are an infinite number of combinations of flaws that can and do appear on coins. Ditto for combinations of patina, strikes, luster, etc.

 

"MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. Copper coins display full original or lightly toned color as appropriate.

 

"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as appropriate."

 

Good Morning, Mark.

 

This is a very good example to support my position that graders should have the minimum qualifications I have previously suggested. Without those very basic minimum abilities, how can they grade in the present environment, market or technical?

 

You have validated the other aspect of my position, in that your example illustrates the need .....now......to establish a clear and precise standard instead of the unregulated wild west that has evolved.

 

I would ask the same of a grader that is determining any difference in the present environment....exactly what is your standard of rigorous definition of the difference between the grades in order to arrive at the conclusion of the decision rendered.

 

It is not enough to opine "I might not be able to define it but I know it when I see it". The decision made economically impacts the public.

 

How did and do you determine the difference? What clear standard do you use?

 

John, I believe you inferred previously, that the ANA standards were objective. Either way, based on the grade definitions I posted, do you feel that way?

 

I didn't use a "clear standard" because there isn't one and I don't see how there could be one, which would be practical.

 

I think we are repeating ourselves, Mark.

 

If the ANA standards, in your opinion or anyone else's opinion are not sufficient and need to be clarified, then all interested parties should convene and do so, or in the alternative create a clear standard. If that can not be done, then the entities involved in giving an opinion that has economic consequences and the entity is paid to render an economic opinion, should clearly explain what criteria is used. At the very least, there should be a licensing criteria based on physical (ophthalmology) ability and knowledge (via testing).

 

I understand your hesitancy to comment on the question I have presented concerning exactly how a grade is arrived at now and a description of the criteria used to distinguish and clearly define the difference, in the definition example you have provided.

 

If there can not be a clear standard, then the entire business model is a deck of cards waiting to either collapse or invite regulation via government action. As a hobby and business model, we should take the first step. To state there can not be a clear standard and we don't see how there can be one, even if it is practical, is not good enough. It is somewhat defeatist, in my opinion.

[cladking]

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

You seem to be of the opinion that every single MS-61 is supposed to be superior to every single MS-60 in every single way. It just doesn't work this way. Every coin has unique characteristics that are comprised of die condition, strike, marking, surface conditions, etc, etc. When a coin is graded it is just an average of all these conditions and this average is the grader's opinion of value.

 

This is exactly what all collectors are demanding; pricing of their coins. They want to keep the price guides simple but you can see how well this is working and in the meantime we still don't have any grading "standards" because we aren't grading coins at all.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

You seem to be of the opinion that every single MS-61 is supposed to be superior to every single MS-60 in every single way. It just doesn't work this way. Every coin has unique characteristics that are comprised of die condition, strike, marking, surface conditions, etc, etc. When a coin is graded it is just an average of all these conditions and this average is the grader's opinion of value.

 

This is exactly what all collectors are demanding; pricing of their coins. They want to keep the price guides simple but you can see how well this is working and in the meantime we still don't have any grading "standards" because we aren't grading coins at all.

 

I think you might be misunderstanding his position, or maybe I am. In my interpretation, you are both in agreement. His commentary is qualified as market grading and market value. The TPG/4PG business model is one of economic opinion, without any clear definition of the standard for the opinion. Thus, the relevancy of the grading opinion is left to the buyer/seller. That rarely works in support of an economic opinion model and will eventually collapse, as it is starting slowly to do so now. There is only so many times a coin can be re-graded to produce a continuing stream of income. The expansion of the business model can only be achieved by increasing the range of the opinion offered. It will still be an unregulated undefined and standard free business model, but it will allow a market based economic opinion platform. At some point, the users (the public) are going to demand the establishment of clear criteria and a standard of performance based on testing of the persons rendering an economic opinion.

[Afterword]

If you want to eliminate subjectivity you have to take the determining factors away from others and give them to yourself. An opinion only becomes subjective when exposed to the scrutiny of others.

 

When you sacrifice objectivity for predictability (in value), subjectivity is the result.

 

My last post....

 

[RWB]

The real 'bottom line' is that the present subjective, unstable and confusing approach benefits those who "grade" coins and those who engage in the business of selling. This was the same situation that existed in US agriculture in the early 19th century - no 'gallon' of oil was the same as another 'gallon;' no 'bushel of wheat' was the same as another 'bushel of wheat,' or a 'bushel of corn.' Consumers and business only got to have fair value when the states and Federal government established, and enforced, standard weights and measures. There was even a standing committee in the House of Representatives for "Coinage, Weights, and Measures."

 

I do not suggest or recommend any kind of governmental control, but rather, the simple idea of hobby standards for grading, nomenclature, etc. This will also help suppress the common crooks and telemarketers to prey on uninformed people.

 

Doing this is cooperative project, but it is not so difficult as those who profit from confusion what have collectors believe. The greatest hurdles are: an organization to maintain standards, and commercial cooperation in preparing the definitions, and a means of industry enforcement/certification.

[cladking]

Thus, the relevancy of the grading opinion is left to the buyer/seller.

 

But this is EXACTLY the problem. TPG's aren't giving grading opinions. They are giving an opinion of the value. You simply compare the net grade they provide to the price guide or to your own estimation of value.

 

Grading a coin would require that you grade each of its attributes individually. A coin might grade 65/ 65/ 63/ 67/ 60. This would tell the experienced collector what the coin looks like. But people don't want coins graded because there are no price guides to look up the value of a graded coin. They want their coins priced and not graded. If they don't agree with the price then they keep looking. If the coin were graded everyone would agree with the grade or, at least, differences of opinion would be inconsequential to the price.

 

Ironically price guides could be adapted to price coins that are graded. Each grade, each parameter, will tend to usually affect price about the same way.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thus, the relevancy of the grading opinion is left to the buyer/seller.

 

But this is EXACTLY the problem. TPG's aren't giving grading opinions. They are giving an opinion of the value. You simply compare the net grade they provide to the price guide or to your own estimation of value.

 

Grading a coin would require that you grade each of its attributes individually. A coin might grade 65/ 65/ 63/ 67/ 60. This would tell the experienced collector what the coin looks like. But people don't want coins graded because there are no price guides to look up the value of a graded coin. They want their coins priced and not graded. If they don't agree with the price then they keep looking. If the coin were graded everyone would agree with the grade or, at least, differences of opinion would be inconsequential to the price.

 

Ironically price guides could be adapted to price coins that are graded. Each grade, each parameter, will tend to usually affect price about the same way.

 

 

You have grossly misunderstood my post. I am not and do not advocate that is EXACTLY the problem. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not that my opinion matters, but I think your position concerning what collectors want and what TPGs/4PGs are delivering, is very illogical and your conclusion does not support the present business model, and the business model would not exist if your position and conclusion was correct.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The real 'bottom line' is that the present subjective, unstable and confusing approach benefits those who "grade" coins and those who engage in the business of selling. This was the same situation that existed in US agriculture in the early 19th century - no 'gallon' of oil was the same as another 'gallon;' no 'bushel of wheat' was the same as another 'bushel of wheat,' or a 'bushel of corn.' Consumers and business only got to have fair value when the states and Federal government established, and enforced, standard weights and measures. There was even a standing committee in the House of Representatives for "Coinage, Weights, and Measures."

 

I do not suggest or recommend any kind of governmental control, but rather, the simple idea of hobby standards for grading, nomenclature, etc. This will also help suppress the common crooks and telemarketers to prey on uninformed people.

 

Doing this is cooperative project, but it is not so difficult as those who profit from confusion what have collectors believe. The greatest hurdles are: an organization to maintain standards, and commercial cooperation in preparing the definitions, and a means of industry enforcement/certification.

 

If the hobby/business model doesn't do it, it will certainly be done for us by government entities.

[Afterword]

The government could dictate the standard for grading to the TPGs and the pricing of the grades for the market. The government could also dictate that no coin could be bought or sold unless it had been authenticated, graded and encapsulated by an authorized TPG.

 

I doubt that many would be any more satisfied with the grades or pricing but it would likely diminish fraud considerably.

 

This is my last post....

 

[mumu]

A coin was recently described as being a 100...yes 100 on the 1 to 10 scale. So anything is possible.

[tejas1836]

A coin was recently described as being a 100...yes 100 on the 1 to 10 scale. So anything is possible.

 

This coin description would fit right in on the thread ATS - "C'mon Man"

[RWB]

Governmental action only occurs when private parties fail to recognize and act on problems. As to numismatics, don't expect any kind of legislative approach to standards - they affect too few and have negligible economic benefit.

 

The hobby has to do this for it's long-term stability and growth. It is part of building a hobby and business environment that looks at the future in 5 or 10-year sections, not on month or maybe 6 months.

[PocketArt]

I haven't experienced the market fluctuations to the extent many of you have; but would it not make sense that a sharp, and prolonged correction in this hobby could in fact have a desirable effect with bringing a coins inflated market grade back down to what is closer to a realistic technical grade? I've seen many threads where a coin was initially graded some prior years before, at a much lower grade, and through subsequent crack-outs, and submissions it gain 4-5 points if not more. I'd think with a prolonged correction; that many of the gradeflated pieces would be scrutinized ever more so, passed up, perhaps sold for significantly less, or, maybe even cracked-out and sold raw to hide the glaring inconsistency to save value of the coin? Gradeflated pieces may actually hurt a coin being in a TPG slab if a sharp, prolonged correction occurred perhaps- creating an inverse effect. Maybe this would be a very fortunate thing to happen to the hobby me thinks!

[cladking]

...but I think your position concerning what collectors want and what TPGs/4PGs are delivering, is very illogical...

 

Then tell me the differences between two specific MS-65 coins that you don't have in hand and don't have a picture of. If they were actually graded then you could make statements about their differences without seeing them.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

...but I think your position concerning what collectors want and what TPGs/4PGs are delivering, is very illogical...

 

Then tell me the differences between two specific MS-65 coins that you don't have in hand and don't have a picture of. If they were actually graded then you could make statements about their differences without seeing them.

 

If you take snippets of my posts and try to reconcile your thoughts with just the snippets, you are not understanding my position at all. I can not explain my position any more than I already have. I wonder if you are taking my comments personally. There is no need to. The comments are not meant to be a personal attack.

 

Concerning your question, you would first have to establish if basis of your question is technical or market opinion. When you base a conclusion on "actually graded", then yes, you are not understanding my posts at all. It does not matter, though. What I am discussing is quite different from what you are interpreting.

[mmissinglink]

Maybe one or more of the current coin "grading" methods are flawed. After all, if a grading method incorporates "attractiveness" as a component of a numerical grade, how can this ever be objective in any way.

 

I think hypothetically, "luster" may be able to be measured with a mechanical device..Also, the percentage of a coin's surface that has scratches can also hypothetically be measured by some device. Maybe a number grade ought to be based in part on the percentage of a coin's surface that has no visible (under Y times magnification) scratches/defects present rather than on the raw number of scratches/defects seen.

 

 

 

.

[cladking]

Maybe one or more of the current coin "grading" methods are flawed. After all, if a grading method incorporates "attractiveness" as a component of a numerical grade, how can this ever be objective in any way.

 

 

This is part of the problem. A lot of people think that there is some inherent quality called "eye appeal" but the reality is most of "eye appeal" is really just an assessment of the overall quality relative to most specimens of the date. Some of eye appeal is related to reflectiveness or other attributes but, for the main part it needn't be a characteristic of grading.

[coinman1794]

We've all seen the sol-called "MS-70" coins that are far from perfection and MS-68 and MS-69 pieces with prominent cuts and dings; lower condition coins gradually slide upward such as the 1894-S dime that magically moved from MS-65 to MS-66.

 

Will the hobby Lords of Grading have to introduce MS-71, or maybe just add a "80s" series to compensate?

 

I have yet to see a 70 that was not as-made. The one exception would be silver eagles that have spotted after grading.

 

I have seen many 69s that would not grade 67. I think silver eagles must default at 69 in the grading rooms.

[RWB]

".... silver eagles must default at 69 in the grading rooms."

 

Hmmm...maybe they "default" to the floor, thus accounting for the "grades" - ?

[WoodenJefferson]

...the television marketers would simply create some hype about 69 as "Its as good as it gets folks, get in line now for this highly prized near-perfect example of perfection!"