Understanding Uncirculated coin grading is tough.... 1 1

[RWB]

...if one tries to emulate TPGs and their unstable, subjective and illogical approaches.

One successful self-teaching approach breaks the subject into three understandable parts:

1. Objective, empirical, quantifiable;

2. Subjective, opinionated, social; and,

3.Emotional, individual, expressive.

The process is most difficult with uncirculated coins because the criteria are not related to wear or abrasion, but to surface damage and degradation. As collectors, we don’t like damage and degradation, yet we have made it the central aspect of “grading” a coin.

Edited August 18, 2020 by RWB

[VKurtB]

But...

#1 is and only can be incomplete, above XF levels

#2 is overstated, and

#3 is pointless because no one serious uses it.

There can be no simple solution because grading Mint state coins is not a contact mark counting exercise. There are four factors intertwining to reach a grade. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[Coinbuf]

Yes it is.

[RWB]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

But...

#1 is and only can be incomplete, above XF levels

#2 is overstated, and

#3 is pointless because no one serious uses it.

There can be no simple solution because grading Mint state coins is not a contact mark counting exercise. There are four factors intertwining to reach a grade. 

Nothing is "pointless" unless we choose to ignore it - then it is lost because we refuse to understand ourselves.

Patience. A good soup must simmer.

[Insider]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

...if one tries to emulate TPGs and their unstable, subjective and illogical approaches.

 

One successful self-teaching approach breaks the subject into three understandable parts:

 

1. Objective, empirical, quantifiable;

 

2. Subjective, opinionated, social; and,

 

3.Emotional, individual, expressive.

 

The process is most difficult with uncirculated coins because the criteria are not related to wear or abrasion, but to surface damage and degradation. As collectors, we don’t like damage and degradation, yet we have made it the central aspect of “grading” a coin.

 

Again, IMO, you have complicated a simple subject. I'll bet you can grade most coins in several seconds.  I say this because a bunch of us old dinosaurs were "self-taught" at first because there were no "crutches" like the Internet, seminars, and TPGS. The quickest way to learn to grade is to take the ANA Seminars and examine every major TPGS slab you can get your hands on.  Finding a long-time, successful professional dealer or three to work with will make the task faster.  Read the books, view the videos, and look at slabbed coins. That is not entirely self teaching but it is much quicker and gives better results. 

PS  IMO, MS coins are by far the easiest to grade.  I've had great success with beginners by using the chart for Morgan dollars in the ANA Guide.  It breaks down much of the quantifiable characteristics for all MS coins.

[VKurtB]

I’m an old timer. I’ve been collecting for 57 years, and I’m now a senior citizen under most definitions. Where I differ from many old timers is I never found a point in time in which all grading made logical sense to me, so I’ve constantly strived to get a “better” grading system. That’s one of my main quarrels with the chief moderator over at CT. He has a date in his mind, somewhere some 30-some years ago, where he thinks grading was perfect as he has refused to continue evolving. 
 

Heck, there are way too many in this hobby, and on this board, who gave up learning anything new in 1964/65, because they have a fetish for a particular metal and concept of value and of money itself. I keep telling people that if I ever get that way, it’s time to shoot me. At no point will it be okay to insist that change needs to stop here. No point ever. Tastes change. What people find important changes. Embrace the changes, don’t fight them.

 

There is one aspect of grading that I do not SUPPORT, because I choose not to, but I continue to RECOGNIZE it, because at the end, the market decides. That aspect is wild toning. I hate that stuff, but it affects grades, and not by only a little. So I need to grit my teeth and use it as part of grades, even if it’s all BS in my opinion, and it is that.

Edited August 18, 2020 by VKurtB

[Conder101]

Of course the "Dinosaurs" only had to deal with three grades of Uncirculated.  then when they got those down they added two more.  When they had a handle on that they added another one. and then finally put in the last five.  and made fun of the very idea that anyone would be able to grade precisely enough to have grades in between those grades (as one service tried).  Oh but wait now we have in between or + grades, and "high end for the grade"  Newbies today don't have the luxury that the Dinosaurs did, they just get kicked into the deep end. 

[LINCOLNMAN]

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I’m an old timer. I’ve been collecting for 57 years, and I’m now a senior citizen under most definitions. Where I differ from many old timers is I never found a point in time in which all grading made logical sense to me, so I’ve constantly strived to get a “better” grading system. That’s one of my main quarrels with the chief moderator over at CT. He has a date in his mind, somewhere some 30-some years ago, where he thinks grading was perfect as he has refused to continue evolving. 
 

Heck, there are way too many in this hobby, and on this board, who gave up learning anything new in 1964/65, because they have a fetish for a particular metal and concept of value and of money itself. I keep telling people that if I ever get that way, it’s time to shoot me. At no point will it be okay to insist that change needs to stop here. No point ever. Tastes change. What people find important changes. Embrace the changes, don’t fight them.

 

There is one aspect of grading that I do not SUPPORT, because I choose not to, but I continue to RECOGNIZE it, because at the end, the market decides. That aspect is wild toning. I hate that stuff, but it affects grades, and not by only a little. So I need to grit my teeth and use it as part of grades, even if it’s all BS in my opinion, and it is that.

As an old timer myself, I think your last sentence is the key to all the grading fuss. I don't support a lot of what I have seen in the market, but it is important, if one cares about getting the most for one's buck and preservation of value, to follow and understand what's going on. As much can be said of other markets. BTW I'm with you on the wild toning thing. Silly. 

[Insider]

13 hours ago, VKurtB said:

 At no point will it be okay to insist that change needs to stop here. No point ever. Tastes change. What people find important changes. Embrace the changes, don’t fight them.

 

There is ONE thing that has never NEVER CHANGED over time for you, me, other dinosaurs, and all the younger collectors and dealers. 

That is:  FIRST SIGNS OF THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL SURFACE on a coin.  When it is present, you can ignore it or not but THAT CHANGES NOTHING. 

[VKurtB]

7 minutes ago, Insider said:

There is ONE thing that has never NEVER CHANGED over time for you, me, other dinosaurs, and all the younger collectors and dealers. 

That is:  FIRST SIGNS OF THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL SURFACE on a coin.  When it is present, you can ignore it or not but THAT CHANGES NOTHING. 

I again disagree, and strongly. Why? Because the term and the very concept of "FIRST SIGNS OF THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL SURFACE" is extraordinarily ill-defined. Some would interpret that to include contact marks, although that would not be part of the industry's most widely held definition. I might interpret that to include the first whiff of toning, and frankly, I do. The color can't change if the surface hasn't. I understand the physics of color, dichroic and otherwise. The first task of understanding anything is to have a mutually agreed upon definition of terms, and this hobby has sucked, truly sucked, at teaching those to our newbies.

[Insider]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

I again disagree, and strongly. Why? Because the term and the very concept of "FIRST SIGNS OF THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL SURFACE" is extraordinarily ill-defined. Some would interpret that to include contact marks, although that would not be part of the industry's most widely held definition. I might interpret that to include the first whiff of toning, and frankly, I do. The color can't change if the surface hasn't. I understand the physics of color, dichroic and otherwise. The first task of understanding anything is to have a mutually agreed upon definition of terms, and this hobby has sucked, truly sucked, at teaching those to our newbies.

Sorry to have oversimplified this for everyone.  That's what I'm accusing Roger of doing.

So, while a mark on a coin destroys its original surface, I had no clue what I wrote could be misinterpreted.  Marks on a coin are not friction wear.  Marks on a coin cannot lower its technical MS grade.- regardless of how many!   While oxidation can be said to destroy a coin's original surface UNTIL it actually becomes black corrosion, toning cannot lower a coins technical grade either.  Eye appeal and "taste" can be acquired so be closer to the prevailing norm but it cannot be measured and many disregard the norm anyway. 

Perhaps if you try looking at coins using florescent light my words "FIRST SIGNS OF THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL SURFACE" will become perfectly clear.   

[RWB]

Now that the soup has simmered a little more, here is the Part I discourse on uncirculated coin grading. Nothing is ready to serve, so don't get out your soup spoon and bib just yet.

:)

Part 1. Objective, empirical, quantifiable. What does this mean?

These are things that can be counted or measured. For uncirculated coins they are marks on the surface caused by contact with other coins or objects. We can count them. We can measure their size. We can plot their location on the surface. Different people, working under similar conditions will obtain similar results. We can also use these data to separate coins into categories (“bins”) by the quantity, severity and location of marks.

In a uniform examination situation, the grader (anyone) works in a dimly lit room, uses a 5x magnifying glass to view a coin lit by a 2-cm wide array of daylight-color LED or filament-type light in a 12-15-cm white reflector (essentially a small desktop lamp).

The grader looks at each side and edge of the coin first without magnification, slowly rotating and turning the coin so that light scatters from its surface at varying angles. This provides an overview and helps identify larger marks.

A circle representing the obverse is drawn on a piece of plain paper and this is divided into four quadrants for convenience. A large dot is placed on the circle corresponding to the approximate location and size of each larger mark. Do the same for a very large mark or scrape just use a larger dot on the drawing. The process is repeated with the reverse, and edge if desired.

Next, add the 5x magnifier and start with the bottom center (usually date) area moving in a clockwise manner around the coin. Place dots on the drawing for each mark evident under magnification, but not recognized without magnification. Repeat for the reverse, and edge if desired. Do not include any mark twice.

Count the dots on your drawing. A small dot equals 1 point; a large dot equals 2 points; a very large dot or scrape equals 3 points. Add the points for the coin’s preliminary damage score.

Next, correlate dots on your drawing with the coin’s design. Every graphic design has focal points to which our attention is drawn. This occurs because the artist made use of our instinctive visual identification system, which is consistent across most cultural and social groups. Put simply: faces attract the most attention; smooth areas emphasize irregularities; textured areas suppress irregularities. (Some call these “focal areas” and their use is appropriate for objective observation, only that it will vary a little with each design type.)

Last, match the dots on your drawing to the focal points of the coin. Note the value of all marks falling on the portrait cheek, and all large or very large marks on the smooth field. Add these to the preliminary damage score. Do a similar matching but paying attention to small marks that fall into non-focal areas such as massed hair or foliage or interior parts of letters. Total these and subtract these from the damage score just obtained.

The result is a separate damage score for obverse, reverse and edge of the coin. We could then establish a range of scores for any uncirculated “grade” we wish. For example MS-70 will always have a score of zero (“0”) because by definition it is exactly as it comes from the die – it has suffered no injury of any kind. MS-69 could be 1 to 5, MS-68 might be 6 to 10, and so forth depending on how your (or your standardization organization) wishes to define each numeric “bin.”

Now, all of this seems like a lot of back-and-forth and scribbling this-n-that to get to a “grade,” and so it is. However, these are the steps taken when using an empirical methodology. Human coin “graders” do this largely automatically – they don’t have to think about the steps. These are the same steps an automated system would take to “grade” the latest 10,000 uncirculated widgets fresh from the Mint Bureau.

It works because the subjective and emotional are removed from consideration. It is fair, repeatable, consistent and logical within the human limits of defect recognition and categorization (binning). The bias introduced is a product of creating discrete bins and not of the data.

[VKurtB]

Insider, you just put your finger smack dab on the essence of this hobby’s essential problem, probably without realizing it. It is here: “many disregard the norm anyway”. We need to not celebrate these people and buy their books; we need to treat them as the hobby’s pariahs. They are only muddying the water, metaphorically. 
 

Now, to RWB: You have just related the way we used to grade MS coins, and it is woefully obsolete. There are at least 4 mostly unrelated aspects to a grade in MS coins today: degree of preservation (the one you just related), luster, strike quality, and what some call “eye appeal”. I’ve always hated that last term, because it is so imprecise. I prefer “special attributes” but I’m not convinced even that captures the concept. Within the last 5 to 10 years, contact marks have given way to luster as the primary grading aspect. And strike is vying for second place. 
 

Who says your first tome above is obsolete besides me? Well, the American Numismatic Association for one. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by VKurtB

[Insider]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Insider, you just put your finger smack dab on the essence of this hobby’s essential problem, probably without realizing it. It is here: “many disregard the norm anyway”. We need to not celebrate these people and buy their books; we need to treat them as the hobby’s pariahs. They are only muddying the water, metaphorically. 
 

 

Good luck!  We are the pariahs yelling into the hurricane of the status quo.

 

 

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

Good luck!  We are the pariahs yelling into the hurricane of the status quo.

 

 

If that’s true, that’s great. The pariahs sure do have an outsized megaphone on the Internet, however.

[Insider]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

If that’s true, that’s great. The pariahs sure do have an outsized megaphone on the Internet, however.

...and with very few exceptions that can probably be counted on two hands, the real movers & shakers in the industry don't bother with chat forums AT ALL and they cannot be persuaded to so they hear NOTHING.  This particular forum has the lowest participation of the top four.  It needs to be resuscitated.  

[VKurtB]

25 minutes ago, Insider said:

...and with very few exceptions that can probably be counted on two hands, the real movers & shakers in the industry don't bother with chat forums AT ALL and they cannot be persuaded to so they hear NOTHING.  This particular forum has the lowest participation of the top four.  It needs to be resuscitated.  

With a SLIGHTLY different focus, I’ve been noticing this and talking about it for years now. The Internet coin hobby, and the major conventions coin hobby, barely know a thing about each other. ANA leadership types pay lip service to wanting the Internet division to be part of ANA, but they demonstrate repeatedly they know nothing about the Internet crowd. And if this, and the other message boards, are any indication, the Internet crowd knows next to nothing about the major show crowd either. Both “divisions” are ignorant of the other, and frankly, that bites. It doesn’t need to be that way but it is.

Of course, trying to imagine Cliff Mishler or Jeff Garrett, or even Joe Boling dealing with RichieRich2020 or Quintus Arrias without suffering a blow-out aneurism is a mind bender. 

[RWB]

Reminds me of the song "The Call the Wind Pariah."

With enough pushing the "Golden Calf" cruise ship can be turned.

[Henri Charriere]

21 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Of course, trying to imagine Cliff Mishler or Jeff Garrett, or even Joe Boling dealing with RichieRich2020 or Quintus Arrias without suffering a blow-out aneurism is a mind bender. 

I heard that! And here I was pondering... Maybe I can reinvigorate the Forum...  Naaah!

[RWB]

We have a rich, hearty broth. The next addition to numismatic soup will be posted tomorrow (Thursday).

[Cat Bath]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 2:42 PM, VKurtB said:

 Within the last 5 to 10 years, contact marks have given way to luster as the primary grading aspect. And strike is vying for second place. 

As blasphemers, I sentence them all to grade 10 monster boxes of ASEs 

[VKurtB]

4 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

As blasphemers, I sentence them all to grade 10 monster boxes of ASEs 

The horror... the horror.

[RWB]

Now a little seasoning ----

 

Part 2. Subjective, opinionated, social.

These are grading factors developed by collectors over time and through interactions. “Luster” is at the top of this list along with “strike,” “sharpness,” “toning” and “rarity.” Individually, we make judgements about the “betterness or worseness” of subjective factors. These derive from our social discourse and learning from other collectors, especially those assumed to be respected authorities. These are qualitative rather than quantitative as with counting marks. Qualitative information has value and can improve ways of obtaining quantities data, but they are not separable from the subjective.

Luster, for example, has no empirical definition. It’s an “I know it when I see it” characteristic that lacks both measurement and assessment independent of the grader or observer. We have no direct human way of converting the continuum of reflectivity and dispersion into discrete values analogous to counting marks: we cannot count luster. It might be converted into something a little more consistently usable by introducing machine measurement of light scatter from surfaces, and then assigning ranges to data bins, much as described in counting marks (above).

We “learn luster” by observation and anecdote. Our individual and collective experiences increase over time and over repetition. This creates a self-defined veneer of expert knowledge when in reality we are only combining anecdote with anecdote. It is much like the problem faced by legal investigators when they interview witnesses to an accident. Each has a story and each story is correct from the witness’ location, lighting, perception and recall. But when all the stories are combined, there is little agreement on what occurred. Each witness unknowingly adds details and opinions from their own experiences, thus contaminating what the witness believes is objective reporting. We do the same in describing “strike” (visible design detail), “sharpness,” and “rarity” only the descriptive words differ, not the human mechanism.

All of these are complex combinations of our social interactions and combined opinions resulting in subjective assessments. Some claim this can be learned by multiple people so that the reported results are consistent. That might be so in a very small number of closely associated people such as within a specialist group at a coin grading facility. This is very difficult to maintain, costly to enhance and impossible to expand beyond a small number of constant practitioners. While this might be suitable for a company, the identical condition serves to emphasize the inability of most others to attain or use such skills. The result is that collectors outside of these constrained environments merely use more words to convey less knowledge while simultaneously conveying less clarity and consistency to others.

“Rarity” deserves special mention. It is a much loved approach to producing pseudo-empirical information using numbers as if they were absolute values. We create rarity scales (actually bins just like for uncirculated coin grades) then place estimates of extant coins within those bins. But unlike uncirculated coin bins, the rarity quantities are usually not direct counts of pieces known, but are guesses of pieces that might be known. Exceptions are often well known to collectors: exactly twenty-four 1894-S dimes were struck and we can physically count the number of specimens remaining, calculating the pieces destroyed in routine US Mint processes or by advertence.

We, as humans, are compelled to sort, organize, quantify, or limit things. If we lack objective information, then we continue to do these things by interpolating, extrapolating, or inventing to fill the gaps. This does not make the result better, but it does make the result more satisfying and acceptable as being real.

[Cat Bath]

For MS coins, I believe the accepted weight is...

60% preservation

15% Luster

15% Strike 

10% Eye Appeal.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Cat Bath
Still stuck in double spacing and it is frustrating.

[Insider]

8 minutes ago, RWB said:

Now a little seasoning ----

 

Part 2. Subjective, opinionated, social.

 

These are grading factors developed by collectors over time and through interactions. “Luster” is at the top of this list along with “strike,” “sharpness,” “toning” and “rarity.” Individually, we make judgements about the “betterness or worseness” of subjective factors. These derive from our social discourse and learning from other collectors, especially those assumed to be respected authorities. These are qualitative rather than quantitative as with counting marks. Qualitative information has value and can improve ways of obtaining quantities data, but they are not separable from the subjective.

 

Luster, for example, has no empirical definition. It’s an “I know it when I see it” characteristic that lacks both measurement and assessment independent of the grader or observer. We have no direct human way of converting the continuum of reflectivity and dispersion into discrete values analogous to counting marks: we cannot count luster. It might be converted into something a little more consistently usable by introducing machine measurement of light scatter from surfaces, and then assigning ranges to data bins, much as described in counting marks (above).

 

We “learn luster” by observation and anecdote. Our individual and collective experiences increase over time and over repetition. This creates a self-defined veneer of expert knowledge when in reality we are only combining anecdote with anecdote. It is much like the problem faced by legal investigators when they interview witnesses to an accident. Each has a story and each story is correct from the witness’ location, lighting, perception and recall. But when all the stories are combined, there is little agreement on what occurred. Each witness unknowingly adds details and opinions from their own experiences, thus contaminating what the witness believes is objective reporting. We do the same in describing “strike” (visible design detail), “sharpness,” and “rarity” only the descriptive words differ, not the human mechanism.

 

All of these are complex combinations of our social interactions and combined opinions resulting in subjective assessments. Some claim this can be learned by multiple people so that the reported results are consistent. That might be so in a very small number of closely associated people such as within a specialist group at a coin grading facility. This is very difficult to maintain, costly to enhance and impossible to expand beyond a small number of constant practitioners. While this might be suitable for a company, the identical condition serves to emphasize the inability of most others to attain or use such skills. The result is that collectors outside of these constrained environments merely use more words to convey less knowledge while simultaneously conveying less clarity and consistency to others.

 

“Rarity” deserves special mention. It is a much loved approach to producing pseudo-empirical information using numbers as if they were absolute values. We create rarity scales (actually bins just like for uncirculated coin grades) then place estimates of extant coins within those bins. But unlike uncirculated coin bins, the rarity quantities are usually not direct counts of pieces known, but are guesses of pieces that might be known. Exceptions are often well known to collectors: exactly twenty-four 1894-S dimes were struck and we can physically count the number of specimens remaining, calculating the pieces destroyed in routine US Mint processes or by advertence.

 

We, as humans, are compelled to sort, organize, quantify, or limit things. If we lack objective information, then we continue to do these things by interpolating, extrapolating, or inventing to fill the gaps. This does not make the result better, but it does make the result more satisfying and acceptable as being real.

 

I am enjoying your posts as I don't think most people think this deeply.  So much to say so little time...I'm still working on my comments to what you posted before Part 1 and this one.

I just had a light bulb go off.  I guess you cannot be disagreed with BECAUSE...

Take "luster."  I don't have any problem recognizing original luster and its degree of reflectivity until it becomes impaired or lost.  I am not alone.  Therefore, most of your comments make no sense to me at all.  There are thousands of professionals who can do the same as I do.  You call it a veneer.  I call it the knowledge that comes from experience.   Therefore (the light bulb), your writing applies to the rest of collectors who may not be able to do this.  The same goes for "strike."   Once you see enough fully struck Morgan dollars all the way down to coins with no evidence of an ear, judging a coin's strike is very easy.  Same goes for any series.  The key is the coin's surface where its design is missing.   

You put three graders of the caliber at NGC on a coin and they are not going to be fooling each other with anecdotal opinions of fictional concepts they think they understand.  They are going to say the coin is weakly struck and the market of KNOWLEDGEABLE collectors will agree.  

[Insider]

21 minutes ago, Cat Bath said:

For MS coins, I believe the accepted weight is...

60% preservation

15% Luster

15% Strike 

10% Eye Appeal.

Very interesting concept.   I'm out of "likes" for the day. 

Not for me personally but possibly closer to this...

Commercial Grading:

50% Eye appeal.

30% Luster.

10% Value.

8% Preservation.

2%  Strike.

Technical Grading:

0%  Strike.

0% Eye Appeal

2% Luster

98% Preservation.

 

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, Insider said:

Very interesting concept.   I'm out of "likes" for the day. 

Not for me personally but possibly closer to this...

Commercial Grading:

50% Eye appeal.

30% Luster.

10% Value.

8% Preservation.

2%  Strike.

Technical Grading:

0%  Strike.

0% Eye Appeal

2% Luster

98% Preservation.

 

Other than some slight percentage quibbles in the commercial grading distribution (lower eye appeal with higher strike) I can find very little here with which to disagree. Some people can remain technical grading “nick pickers” if that is their wish, but they only become all the more irrelevant as each month passes and more enter graveyards.

[VKurtB]

44 minutes ago, Cat Bath said:

For MS coins, I believe the accepted weight is...

60% preservation

15% Luster

15% Strike 

10% Eye Appeal.

This is just wrong, so wrong.

[Cat Bath]

28 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

This is just wrong, so wrong.

Skip to 00:20

Of course I have my own opinions but who doesn't 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Cat Bath

[VKurtB]

10 minutes ago, Cat Bath said:

Skip to 00:20

Of course I have my own opinions but who doesn't 

 

I don’t even have to watch it. Now that I know it’s from PCGS, I’m rather inclined to dismiss it immediately. Not because they can’t grade, but because they have serious problems with honesty and transparency. I get that every day at work. I work for politicians. Why would I want more from my TPGS?

I see PCGS as the type of place that puts one set of criteria in their educational materials, then uses a different one in the actual grading room. There really is only one true grading criterion over there - “because we said so.”

Edited August 20, 2020 by VKurtB