EagleRJO Posted July 16, 2022 Author Share Posted July 16, 2022 (edited) Thanks, on to my next challenge which is the 1879-CC and 1879-S Rev. of 78 Morgan Dollars. Edited July 16, 2022 by EagleRJO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingAl Posted July 16, 2022 Share Posted July 16, 2022 On 7/16/2022 at 12:26 PM, RWB said: What a silly and self-serving comment. Change is fine and to be expected. But changes in standards demand input before they are made. That has nto been done, hence the piles of complaints and confusion that are largely unnecessary. Roger, one could easily argue that since the industry has completely adopted the TPG standards without any second thought that input was given. The industry accepting the standard could easily be that input. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted July 16, 2022 Share Posted July 16, 2022 On 7/16/2022 at 4:22 PM, FlyingAl said: Roger, one could easily argue that since the industry has completely adopted the TPG standards without any second thought that input was given. The industry accepting the standard could easily be that input. Just my opinion. SOMEBODY has to be the de facto arbiter of what the standards are, and my vote is with NGC and “across the street” jointly, and NOT with Roger Burdette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted July 16, 2022 Share Posted July 16, 2022 On 7/16/2022 at 5:22 PM, FlyingAl said: Roger, one could easily argue that since the industry has completely adopted the TPG standards without any second thought that input was given. The industry accepting the standard could easily be that input. Just my opinion. Puts the cart before the horse. It presents the attitude that collector involvement is not worth (worthy of ?) the money-industry's attention. This has never been the case in the hobby in the past, and it presents a disturbing dictatorial hubris from those who pump out "official grading opinions." All past coin grading guidance was developed collaboratively. The present was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted July 17, 2022 Share Posted July 17, 2022 On 7/16/2022 at 6:14 PM, RWB said: Puts the cart before the horse. It presents the attitude that collector involvement is not worth (worthy of ?) the money-industry's attention. This has never been the case in the hobby in the past, and it presents a disturbing dictatorial hubris from those who pump out "official grading opinions." All past coin grading guidance was developed collaboratively. The present was not. Cuz after all, if Roger wasn’t consulted, then it’s not valid, right? EagleRJO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleRJO Posted July 18, 2022 Author Share Posted July 18, 2022 (edited) Okay, I can't resist ... you guys sucked me into this debate over the older "Technical Grading" vs the newer "Market Grading", even though I am a newer coin collector. Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you guys will ... lol), but isn't the older Technical Grading based only on the physical condition of the coin where either there are certain features of a coin present or not, and the variations of that feature in between (e.g. not visible, significantly worn, moderately worn, slightly worn, not worn, etc.). But that style of grading may not consider all of the factors that can affect the value of a coin to a collector in the open market like strike quality, toning, luster, eye appeal, etc. which are considered in the more modern "Market Grading". I can see the side of the argument for Technical Grading which may be more of a purist point of view as it would be consistent and absolute from coin to coin, and not be significantly affected by what could be very subjective grading opinions that would be more likely to vary from one grading expert to the next. However, you could have 2 coins that grade the same, but one coin is worth more because of a more desirable appearance or pedigree. As a newer collector I find it very useful to have grading that considerers subjective qualities that can affect the value of a coin, instead of having two coins with exactly the same grade varying in price based on how they appear. And wasn't the original intent of the Sheldon scale to standardize the value of large cent coins with a multiplication factor between 1 and 70 that would indeed consider market factors based on what the coin was worth in the open market, and then work backwards to a number which was then described. Starting with a base value of 1 for a particular coin when you could just barely establish the type of coin (e.g. for a large 15 cent coin that could be barely identified, it would have a grade of 1 and be worth 1 x 15 cents in the open market), a G4 would be worth 4 x 15 cents or 60 cents in the open market, on up to say a perfect MS-70 that would be worth 70 x 15 cents or $10.50. Seems to me that the original intent of the grading scale was to establish value in an open market, working backwards to a number, and that the present Market Grading which considers more subjective factors associated with the strike and appearance is just a natural extension of that. Just my 2 nickels as a newer collector. Okay I have the flak jacket on for the replies, which seems to get a little heated sometimes, and I may have opened a can of worms I really shouldn't have ... Edited July 18, 2022 by EagleRJO GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted July 18, 2022 Share Posted July 18, 2022 On 7/17/2022 at 7:49 PM, EagleRJO said: Okay, I can't resist ... you guys sucked me into this debate over the older "Technical Grading" vs the newer "Market Grading", even though I am a newer coin collector. Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you guys will ... lol), but isn't the older Technical Grading based only on the physical condition of the coin where either there are certain features of a coin present or not, and the variations of that feature in between (e.g. not visible, significantly worn, moderately worn, slightly worn, not worn, etc.). But that style of grading may not consider all of the factors that can affect the value of a coin to a collector in the open market like strike quality, toning, luster, eye appeal, etc. which are considered in the more modern "Market Grading". I can see the side of the argument for Technical Grading which may be more of a purist point of view as it would be consistent and absolute from coin to coin, and not be significantly affected by what could be very subjective grading opinions that would be more likely to vary from one grading expert to the next. However, you could have 2 coins that grade the same, but one coin is worth more because of a more desirable appearance or pedigree. As a newer collector I find it very useful to have grading that considerers subjective qualities that can affect the value of a coin, instead of having two coins with exactly the same grade varying in price based on how they appear. And wasn't the original intent of the Sheldon scale to standardize the value of large cent coins with a multiplication factor between 1 and 70 that would indeed consider market factors based on what the coin was worth in the open market, and then work backwards to a number which was then described. Starting with a base value of 1 for a particular coin when you could just barely establish the type of coin (e.g. for a large 15 cent coin that could be barely identified, it would have a grade of 1 and be worth 1 x 15 cents in the open market), a G4 would be worth 4 x 15 cents or 60 cents in the open market, on up to say a perfect MS-70 that would be worth 70 x 15 cents or $10.50. Seems to me that the original intent of the grading scale was to establish value in an open market, working backwards to a number, and that the present Market Grading which considers more subjective factors associated with the strike and appearance is just a natural extension of that. Just my 2 nickels as a newer collector. Okay I have the flak jacket on for the replies, which seems to get a little heated sometimes, and I may have opened a can of worms I really shouldn't have ... Don’t apologize for being correct and up to date. You have Roger beat by a mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingAl Posted July 18, 2022 Share Posted July 18, 2022 On 7/17/2022 at 6:49 PM, EagleRJO said: I can see the side of the argument for Technical Grading which may be more of a purist point of view as it would be consistent and absolute from coin to coin, and not be significantly affected by what could be very subjective grading opinions that would be more likely to vary from one grading expert to the next. However, you could have 2 coins that grade the same, but one coin is worth more because of a more desirable appearance or pedigree. As a newer collector I find it very useful to have grading that considerers subjective qualities that can affect the value of a coin, instead of having two coins with exactly the same grade varying in price based on how they appear. This is exactly correct, and this is exactly why the hobby has chosen to adopt the TPG standards. They are more up to date and more correct. In essence, what grading comes down to is assigning a value to a coin, because grade is the main part of that. The old grading standards fell short on some levels, so they were revamped so that the grade more accurately reflects the coin's value by including attributes like colors, luster, strike, etc. This is how I see it anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
