What defines a "Conservative" or "Liberal" coin grader 1 1

[RWB]

Entirely valid and reasonable; and also shows how to ignore the advantages of appropriate technology, and misdirecting human ability to mundane applications.

[GoldFinger1969]

5 hours ago, RWB said:

the advantages of appropriate technology

With high-tech scanning and the ability to use micro-lasers to recreate the surface with any/all imperfections....you would think this would be a supplment or aid or sole judge going forward.

The whole concerpt of self-driving cars -- or the cars taking over at critical times -- is that a CPU can process information faster and from more sources than a pair of human eyes and the human brain.  Similarly, high-tech scanners, cameras, and/or lasers should be able to give us faster and better and more secure photos and grading than we had years or decades ago.

At least I would think so......

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[MarkFeld]

8 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

With high-tech scanning and the ability to use micro-lasers to recreate the surface with any/all imperfections....you would think this would be a supplment or aid or sole judge going forward.

The whole concerpt of self-driving cars -- or the cars taking over at critical times -- is that a CPU can process information faster and from mour sources than a pair of human eyes and the human brain.  Similarly, high-tech scanners, cameras, and/or lasers should be able to give us faster and better and more secure photos and grading than we had years or decades ago.

At least I would think so......

 

Other than to grade coins which are essentially identical and perfect, I don’t see how that would work. As you’ve already pointed out, there are an infinite number of possible unique combinations of flaws on coins. How do you program a computer to assess each individual coin (without human input in each instance) and then apply a standardized grade? 

[scopru]

Interesting question about conservative vs liberal graders.  I am not sure any one answer will suffice.  

To me a conservative grader would know the guidelines for a given grade and grade based on them without concern for a coin being close to a grade above or below.   So more strict if you will.  

 A liberal grader would user the same guidelines but possibly upgrade or downgrade if close to meeting criteria for the grade above or below.  So a little more flexible with the top or lower end of a grade.

Now I also believe the guidelines for a grade are highly subjective and quite often will be at slightly different with another's vision of the same guidelines.  So instead of a fixed set of guidelines, we have a somewhat dynamic set that can vary between graders. Therefore, we get submitters thinking one thing based on their own vision of the grade and are often surprised with higher or lower grades they receive in return from a TPG.  And then those cracking out a coin they disagreed with the grade and resubmitting it only for it to come back with a different grade again. So on and so forth.

Edited October 22, 2020 by scopru

[Insider]

On 10/20/2020 at 12:30 PM, VKurtB said:

I've found that even terms used in strict technical grading are subjective, and therefore this entire exercise is utterly pointless. Like what, you say? Try "prime focal area" of a coin. As someone who has literally printed MILLIONS of photographic negatives, with all sorts of technologies, even HAVING a "prime focal area" is a liability, and "beating that out of you" is a goal of that industry's training. I have been trained NOT TO HAVE a prime focal area. It's why photographic printers (the people) often were taught to print with the negatives upside down, so that we didn't get absorbed into "subject watching". Then 35mm camera makers invented cameras that loaded right to left, and screwed that up. When I look at a coin these days, my training has caused me to scan an entire side without a prime focal area, so there's that. When I took the ANA's "Grading Coins Today" course, those "prime focal area" pages were amusing to me, but not useful.

Even in the act of taking photographs, most people lack what is called "frame awareness" and get all sorts of unintended stuff on the periphery of their pictures. I tend to amaze my wife with my "composition skill". Nope, it's just frame awareness. I get what I intend to get because of it, unlike the helpful but incompetent fellow who took our picture on the Swilcan Bridge at St. Andrews. Scanning an entire surface or frame agnostically is a learned skill.

This is a discussion about grading not photography.  I do understand your need to use examples from something you are knowledgeable about; however, there are several numismatic publications that show what a PFA is on specific coins and all the publications mostly agree.  Perhaps, if you read those publications you might agree that a particular coin's PFA is not subjective at all. 

[Insider]

On 10/20/2020 at 12:45 PM, RWB said:

Yes, you are mistaken.

I assumed nothing about possible replies, so there was neither surprise or disappointment. They are nebulous which might also be useful to know. My personal opinion was/is not part of the question or responses, even though some seem to have assumed that.

I don't think anyone posting in your discussion ASSUMED ANYTHING!  I do think that at least two posters in this thread are interested in what you think the answer is.  One of them has asked you TWICE with no response yet.  I hope you don't go the way of Liberals who like to duck honest questions.  I would even be happy with this answer from a Liberal: 

"I "  don't chose to answer your question. "

[Insider]

On 10/20/2020 at 5:31 PM, VKurtB said:

I'm not certain which of your worlds disturbs me more, Roger's contact mark counting "nick picking" world, or your "if it's good enough for Bugatti, it's good enough for me" world. All things considered, I'll take grading the way NGC does it today, thank you very much. And I put my money where my mouth is, too. I can't think of ANYTHING about coin grading that has NOT fantastically improved since "the good old days". As if...

I can.

[Insider]

On 10/20/2020 at 5:46 PM, RWB said:

RE: "A standard can be defined.  It is a set standard.  In your example, as the science of measurement improved, the way to measure the standard changed.  The same has happened to grading."

Nope. I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling that the writer of the above is clear about the meaning of a "standard" ...but anyway, it does not matter. There is no standard and never has been. In part that is because more money can be made by float than fix. Deception is easy that way.

I know what's going on in the real world as far as coin grading.  I was there then and I'm still hanging in.  I also know what a "standard" is.  At one time the "standard" for a Mint State coin was very clear and very easy to determine.  I didn't change it and I couldn't stop it.  If you check the record of everything I wrote that was published, you can confirm that.  Coins are either MS or they are not.  THAT STANDARD HAS NEVER CHANGED so in reality the standard for MS never changed.  It is still very easy to determine.  In fact, the newest edition of the ANA's Grading Guide still clings to the MS standard of 'NO TRACE OF WEAR."  What changed was that standard was ignored more and more almost from the First Edition of the Guide for a number of different reasons.  As you point out, money is one of them.       

[Insider]

6 hours ago, RWB said:

I do not feel any of the purposes or results have been accomplished.

All of the so-called grades are biased and tainted by extraneous beliefs, assumptions, and greed.

The only way to have truly honest coin/medal "grading," is to deliberately separate grading functions from market forces/valuation. That requires clear, known standards, uniformly applied; and total separation of condition assessment from all value opinion or assumption.

 

Question?  If I show you a coin in a field you collect, would you be able to grade it without any influences from the market?

[Insider]

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Lots of modern coins grade 69 one or more times, but 70 the next time. They’re not necessarily immune, either. And generally, they should be much easier to grade than classics.

IMO, the line between 69 and 70 is very easy to determine an teach.  ONE FLAW and the coin is not perfect.  Very minor Mint-made defects may be ignored by some folks.

In my experience, upgrades from 69 very rarely happens.  It does happen.  Last month we had a submission of over 400 SE graded 69 by a top TPGS.  I found 3 that I could honestly grade 70.  Most were correctly graded as 69's.  Several coins were our 67's and over thirty were our 68's.  To the naked eye, I'd guess at least 200 coins looked like 70's but the were not and were correctly graded as 69's.

I am the first to tell anyone that you are throwing away your money trying to upgrade a 69 to a 70.  

 

[MarkFeld]

41 minutes ago, Insider said:

I don't think anyone posting in your discussion ASSUMED ANYTHING!  I do think that at least two posters in this thread are interested in what you think the answer is.  One of them has asked you TWICE with no response yet.  I hope you don't go the way of Liberals who like to duck honest questions.  I would even be happy with this answer from a Liberal: 

"I "  don't chose to answer your question. "

Stop with the politics. It’s unnecessary, off topic and not for this forum.

[MarkFeld]

3 minutes ago, Insider said:

IMO, the line between 69 and 70 is very easy to determine an teach.  ONE FLAW and the coin is not perfect.  Very minor Mint-made defects may be ignored by some folks.

In my experience, upgrades from 69 very rarely happens.  It does happen.  Last month we had a submission of over 400 SE graded 69 by a top TPGS.  I found 3 that I could honestly grade 70.  Most were correctly graded as 69's.  Several coins were our 67's and over thirty were our 68's.  To the naked eye, I'd guess at least 200 coins looked like 70's but the were not and were correctly graded as 69's.

I am the first to tell anyone that you are throwing away your money trying to upgrade a 69 to a 70.  

 

The line is (or at should be) easy, but it’s not always maintained. And it sounds to me as if upgrades from 69 to 70 occur more frequently than you think.

[MarkFeld]

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited October 21, 2020 by MarkFeld

[Insider]

Just now, MarkFeld said:

Stop with the politics. It’s unnecessary, off topic and not for this forum.

 Read the title  LIBERAL!

A person of liberal principals or views as in grading or ducking questions.  Liberals exist on both siders OF EVERYTHING!!!   My bakery is liberal with the sugar crystals - thank God.  Now please loosen your - never mind, the liberal snowflakes don't understand humor.  

[Insider]

10 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

The line is (or at should be) easy, but it’s not always maintained. And it sounds to me as if upgrades from 69 to 70 occur more frequently than you think.

Only in the auction business (?) or with LIBERAL graders or at a liberal TPGS.  I've heard a rumor that dealers expect a certain % of SE to grade 70 in a  large submission.  The ONLY thing I can maintain goes on at my desk.  

Edited October 21, 2020 by Insider

[MarkFeld]

20 minutes ago, Insider said:

 Read the title  LIBERAL!

A person of liberal principals or views as in grading or ducking questions.  Liberals exist on both siders OF EVERYTHING!!!   My bakery is liberal with the sugar crystals - thank God.  Now please loosen your - never mind, the liberal snowflakes don't understand humor.  

You’re either making excuses or blind to your unwillingness or inability to set politics aside. Read the post which followed the title. It was about grading, not “Liberals who like to duck honest questions”. 

[Insider]

11 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

You’re either making excuses or blind to your unwillingness or inability to set politics aside. Read the post which followed the title. It was about grading, not “Liberals who like to duck honest questions”. 

Mark, I'm very Liberal!  I tolerate those who don't deserve it but only up to a point. 

Now, I'll go back and read that post as you have suggested.  I always accept instructions from more knowledgeable folks.   After that, I'm going to sign off for the day. 

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Other than to grade coins which are essentially identical and perfect, I don’t see how that would work. As you’ve already pointed out, there are an infinite number of possible unique combinations of flaws on coins. How do you program a computer to assess each individual coin (without human input in each instance) and then apply a standardized grade? 

Good points....but today's super-hi resolution 4K scanners, lasers, and CPUs can do wonders.  I don't know how they can or do work, but I know that these self-driving cars have to process dozens of scenarios in a 1/50th of a second that humans can only process 2-4 scenarios in maybe 1/2 second.  Or something like that.

Maybe you can use the high-tech scanners to scan modern coins and save the human experts for classics.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

In fact, the newest edition of the ANA's Grading Guide still clings to the MS standard of 'NO TRACE OF WEAR."  What changed was that standard was ignored more and more almost from the First Edition of the Guide for a number of different reasons.  As you point out, money is one of them.       

Are you saying that a Saint-Gaudens (or other larger coin, for our purposes) that APPEARS to have "wear" but in fact was only dinged around in a bag.....you're not saying it should be graded AU just because it may LOOK like most AU's, are you ?

A heavily-scuffed, dinged coin that does NOT show wear on the high points should still be graded Mint State, IMO.  My understanding of grading is this is acceptable.

Edited October 22, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

Last month we had a submission of over 400 SE graded 69 by a top TPGS.  I found 3 that I could honestly grade 70.  Most were correctly graded as 69's.  Several coins were our 67's and over thirty were our 68's.  To the naked eye, I'd guess at least 200 coins looked like 70's but the were not and were correctly graded as 69's.

What were most of the coins that looked like 70's but really were 69's guilty of -- did they have a common blemish ?

What did the TPGs miss on the 67's ?  Those had to have 2-4 blemishes.....not one....could they really have missed them ?

[GoldFinger1969]

What does "SE" stand for ?

[MarkFeld]

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What does "SE" stand for ?

Probably silver Eagles.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Are you saying that a Saint-Gaudens (or other larger coin, for our purposes) that APPEARS to have "wear" but in fact was only dinged around in a bag.....you're not saying it should be graded AU just because it may LOOK like most AU's, are you ?

A heavily-scuffed, dinged coin that does NOT show wear on the high points should still be graded Mint State, IMO.  My understanding of grading is this is acceptable.

That's what MS61 is for.

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

Mark, I'm very Liberal!  I tolerate those who don't deserve it but only up to a point. 

Now, I'll go back and read that post as you have suggested.  I always accept instructions from more knowledgeable folks.   After that, I'm going to sign off for the day. 

Sounds like someone is liberal in pouring out the hooch, to me.

[GoldFinger1969]

32 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That's what MS61 is for.

Agreed....I know that we had a lengthy debate on this over on CT some time back....technically, lots of dings do NOT take you out of MS grading.  They are NOT "wear."
 

Edited October 22, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[Moxie15]

12 hours ago, VKurtB said:

That's what MS61 is for.

Sounds like gradeflation in action. It used to be what MS 60 for

[Insider]

13 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Are you saying that a Saint-Gaudens (or other larger coin, for our purposes) that APPEARS to have "wear" but in fact was only dinged around in a bag.....you're not saying it should be graded AU just because it may LOOK like most AU's, are you ?

A heavily-scuffed, dinged coin that does NOT show wear on the high points should still be graded Mint State, IMO.  My understanding of grading is this is acceptable.

No, a majority of $20 Saints appear to have rub!  Loss of luster on the high points of these coins is usually from "stacking pressure."   

That's the way it should be; however, on occasion a beat up MS coin is graded AU-something (not by me) to reflect its lower value.  

13 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What were most of the coins that looked like 70's but really were 69's guilty of -- did they have a common blemish ?

What did the TPGs miss on the 67's ?  Those had to have 2-4 blemishes.....not one....could they really have missed them ?

If there is one contact mark, tiny spot, or hairline (on a PR) it is not a 70 anymore.  However, the TPGS MAY get around ignoring tiny spots on a coin they grade 70 because the SE are not guaranteed for environmental defects.  

Yes the 67's had lots of hits.  One place to always check are the letters.

12 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Sounds like someone is liberal in pouring out the hooch, to me.

Not at all.  IMO, you are a fine addition to any coin forum.  I have little tolerance for misinformation from members who are uninformed; folks who do not answer direct questions; and those who leave a discussion because (for whatever the reason) they don't choose to back up their opinion. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Insider

[Insider]

5 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

Sounds like gradeflation in action. It used to be what MS 60 for

MS-60 is rarely used anymore.

[GoldFinger1969]

Lots of AU-58's look nicer than low-60's MS coins.

And it's even more true when dealing with paper currency and the off-center margins look terrible for some 60's-graded paper vs. lower-graded paper with better eye appeal but hidden warts.

Edited October 22, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

54 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

Sounds like gradeflation in action. It used to be what MS 60 for

MS60 is the maximum "ugly" you can get without being an AU.