Do we need more strike designations? 2 2

[VKurtB]

6 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

I have heard that the TPG (specifically PCGS) floated the idea at least once of changing to a 100 point scale, presumably so that collectors can waste their money resubmitting everything a second time to maintain the collection's marketability.

I could see a similar system to this one being proposed to bridge a future transition, one I would not favor, as I consider it pointless and not adding anything.  Keep the existing 70 point scale and add a second with 30 points as a supplement.

When they improve their ability to grade the very same coin consistently each time they see it with a 70 point system, THEN they get more points to fiddle with, and not until.

[Henri Charriere]

24 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

You obviously never knew a guy who grew up in the Philly media market. We don't kill our critics with kindness, we SMACK 'em upside the head.

Little Nicky Scarfo and Angelo Bruno come to mind.  (Glad to see reports of your alleged revilement on the Forum were premature at best.)

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Little Nicky Scarfo and Angelo Bruno come to mind.  (Glad to see reports of your alleged revilement on the Forum were premature at best.)

True story. In the very same office in which I now occasionally work (when we're not COVID hunkering), until about four years ago, the lawyer in the next office over, but in the same suite as mine, actually was ON Little Nicky Scarfo's defense team. Great stories! By the way, he is also an American Numismatic Association member.

Edited September 10, 2020 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

21 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

When they improve their ability to grade the very same coin consistently each time they see it with a 70 point system, THEN they get more points to fiddle with, and not until.

My position on any inconsistency is that the primary reason it happens is because these differences aren't meaningful but trivial, except financially and to those who find a need to exaggerate the significance of what they like and collect (registry set points and imaginary rarity).

I can infer this conclusion because the differences between circulated grades are a lot more noticeable, yet this topic almost never comes up in this context.  No one seems to care if their coin graded VF-20 instead of VF-25.

A second reason is that in comparing the most expensive and prominent coins to art and other collectibles which occurs occasionally, no actually significant object except within mass produced segments is evaluated similarly.   A Faberge Russian Imperial Easter Egg or Picasso would never get assigned a "details" designation for many of the same reasons coins do, if a similar system were in use.

Edited September 10, 2020 by World Colonial

[VKurtB]

7 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

My position on any inconsistency is that the primary reason it happens is because these differences aren't meaningful but trivial, except financially and to those who find a need to exaggerate the significance of what they like and collect (registry set points and imaginary rarity).

Congratulations! When I went to lunch with Cliff Mishler at a past FUN show, he said almost exactly the same words. Hey, is that you, Cliff?

[World Colonial]

9 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Congratulations! When I went to lunch with Cliff Mishler at a past FUN show, he said almost exactly the same words. Hey, is that you, Cliff?

No, can't claim that

[Henri Charriere]

7 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

My position on any inconsistency is that the primary reason it happens is because these differences aren't meaningful but trivial, except financially and to those who find a need to exaggerate the significance of what they like and collect (registry set points and imaginary rarity).

I can infer this conclusion because the differences between circulated grades are a lot more noticeable, yet this topic almost never comes up in this context.  No one seems to care if their coin graded VF-20 instead of VF-25.

A second reason is that in comparing the most expensive and prominent coins to art and other collectibles which occurs occasionally, no actually significant object except within mass produced segments is evaluated similarly.   A Faberge Russian Imperial Easter Egg or Picasso would never get assigned a "details" designation for many of the same reasons coins do, if a similar system were in use.

I do not want to edit your post because you have raised a number of valid concerns -- and a few I have never considered.

Perceived or imaginary rarity is one.  For many years we had mintage figures to rely on and speculation as to how many of a series may have been melted.

Now we have grading, set registries and population reports, or census, which are tentative at best. Shipwrecks and hoards that have turned up. Do I really know where I stand?  No, I do not. Too many variables; too many things in flux.  And now the precious metals market has taken off and a pandemic has complicated things.  It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

[VKurtB]

11 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I do not want to edit your post because you have raised a number of valid concerns -- and a few I have never considered.

Perceived or imaginary rarity is one.  For many years we had mintage figures to rely on and speculation as to how many of a series may have been melted.

Now we have grading, set registries and population reports, or census, which are tentative at best. Shipwrecks and hoards that have turned up. Do I really know where I stand?  No, I do not. Too many variables; too many things in flux.  And now the precious metals market has taken off and a pandemic has complicated things.  It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Anything worth creating by Person A, is worth destroying by Person B, in order to gain an advantage over people like Person A. This has always been the case, and nowhere more so than in numismatics, which draws some the seediest characters you can imagine.

[Henri Charriere]

1 minute ago, VKurtB said:

Anything worth creating by Person A, is worth destroying by Person B, in order to gain an advantage over people like Person A. This has always been the case, and nowhere more so than in numismatics, which draws some the seediest characters you can imagine.

I do not believe that to be true.  Nothing, absolutely nothing tops West 47th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. And their original Diamond District counterpart on Canal Street comes in a close 2d.

[gmarguli]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

I have heard that the TPG (specifically PCGS) floated the idea at least once of changing to a 100 point scale, presumably so that collectors can waste their money resubmitting everything a second time to maintain the collection's marketability.

I could see a similar system to this one being proposed to bridge a future transition, one I would not favor, as I consider it pointless and not adding anything.  Keep the existing 70 point scale and add a second with 30 points as a supplement.

The person who suggested this at PCGS is no longer associated with the company and has abandoned the idea.

The idea for a 100 point scale makes the same amount of sense as a 137 point scale or a 46 point scale. Just because our brains like nice round numbers doesn't mean it is the right number. If anything, we could easily go down to a 30 point scale and get rid of the unused circulated grade numbers. 

[World Colonial]

Just now, Quintus Arrius said:

I do not want to edit your post because you have raised a number of valid concerns -- and a few I have never considered.

Perceived or imaginary rarity is one.  For many years we had mintage figures to rely on and speculation as to how many of a series may have been melted.

Now we have grading, set registries and population reports, or census, which are tentative at best. Shipwrecks and hoards that have turned up. Do I really know where I stand?  No, I do not. Too many variables; too many things in flux.  And now the precious metals market has taken off and a pandemic has complicated things.  It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

You are new to this forum (relatively) but I have written on this subject extensively.  I provide this qualifier, as my point is broader than what you included in your reply.

Whether with the mintage or TPG population data, there isn't and never was any real rarity most of the time.  The US coins most collectors do and used to collect didn't actually have low mintages, only relatively.  The coins may have been difficult to find from circulation and were harder to buy than now (mostly due to the internet) but it isn't like any of it has been hard to buy since before I was born (1965) because it wasn't.

Claiming "rarity" mostly or solely due to the TPG grade is a pure contrivance.  US collecting and those where TPG has been widely accepted (such as in South Africa) disagree with this description but it's far more accurate than what's claimed.  The label on the holder may be rare, but not the coin in it as there isn't any practical difference most of the time with numerous others.

Going back to the point of this thread, that's exactly what I would describe the strike designations currently recognized in US collecting.  There isn't a similar practice with non-US coinage and the reason is 1) because collecting hasn't been financialized except in a few countries or by US buyers. 2) Where it has such as in South Africa, the coins most collectors want the most are hard enough to find except in unappealing quality and occasionally at all. 3) In the aggregate, US coinage is the least affordable versus anywhere else with any scale.

Are practices such as these strike designations here to stay?  Yes, due to the internet. 

Will it retain it's perceived significance which is mostly still associated with the assigned TPG label?  No if the price level ultimately crashes which is my prediction.  This practice doesn't make these coins interesting enough to hardly anyone at any meaningful price, mostly only if they believe they can get their most of their money back. 

I find many common coins interesting though I don't buy any as those bought by most US collectors.  But "interesting" is relative and can't be totally separated from the price.  

[James_OldeTowne]

On 9/9/2020 at 6:06 PM, MarkFeld said:

Perhaps I misunderstood, but perhaps not. James started off by quoting someone else who had referenced “70 different grades”. And he didn’t take issue with that, but instead ran with it - “Seventy??  It's MUCH worse than that.“

Mark, that's correct.  My point was that within only the mint-state grades for Morgan dollars, a simple designation could explode the number of grades to 180, which all by itself is much worse than the (already-exaggerated) 70 points previously referenced.

[RWB]

The hobby of Coin Collecting - "Death by a Thousand Points."

[MarkFeld]

3 hours ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Mark, that's correct.  My point was that within only the mint-state grades for Morgan dollars, a simple designation could explode the number of grades to 180, which all by itself is much worse than the (already-exaggerated) 70 points previously referenced.

Thanks, James.