NGCX 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:42 PM, gmarguli said:

And they did second round financing a little while later valuing the company at $5+ billion.

Who did their valuation, Sam Bankman-Fried !!?? 

They just got bought out, I can't see the value going up that much.

[EagleRJO]

I wonder how much of this NGCX thing is related to CAC getting into the grading game and NGC making a pre-emptive strike to get in front of that, and maybe also trying to be a leader and not a follower.

[VKurtB]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:46 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Re NGCX... no one aged 65 or older need be concerned. This is something the younger generations coming up are going to have to wrestle with.  Besides, the older ladies and gents in this hobby hold all the cards.  Change, as always, comes slowly.

Agreed. From your keyboard to Gawd’s e-uhs. 

[gmarguli]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:59 PM, EagleRJO said:

I wonder how much of this NGCX thing is related to CAC getting into the grading game and NGC making a pre-emptive strike to get in front of that, and maybe also trying to be a leader and not a follower.

Zero. CAC is a meaningless entity when it comes to modern coins. This NGCX thing appears to be strictly for moderns. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/17/2022 at 3:27 PM, gmarguli said:

Zero. CAC is a meaningless entity when it comes to modern coins. This NGCX thing appears to be strictly for moderns. 

Sho’ ‘nuff. 

[Hoghead515]

I was wondering how they was gonna do the registry so I looked it up and found this.

[EagleRJO]

On 11/17/2022 at 4:27 PM, gmarguli said:

Zero. CAC is a meaningless entity when it comes to modern coins. This NGCX thing appears to be strictly for moderns. 

I meant not so much in terms of direct competition, but in terms of staying more relevant in general and what collectors are talking about.

[physics-fan3.14]

There has been a push and desire to go to a 100 point grading scale to replace Sheldon for a very long time. Sheldon's scale didn't make much sense when it was first published, and it makes even less sense now. 

I, for one, am strongly in favor of a new, universal scale. I'm not convinced a 10 point scale is the most ideal, but given that is how many, many other things are also graded it makes sense to have a parallel to other collectibles. 

And yes, it is going to be a sometimes difficult transition. Yes, there will be a period where both scales are used. 

But, I think that it is high time we consider something like this. 

[Hoghead515]

On 11/17/2022 at 6:07 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

There has been a push and desire to go to a 100 point grading scale to replace Sheldon for a very long time. Sheldon's scale didn't make much sense when it was first published, and it makes even less sense now. 

I, for one, am strongly in favor of a new, universal scale. I'm not convinced a 10 point scale is the most ideal, but given that is how many, many other things are also graded it makes sense to have a parallel to other collectibles. 

And yes, it is going to be a sometimes difficult transition. Yes, there will be a period where both scales are used. 

But, I think that it is high time we consider something like this. 

Im like you. If they did change it at all it would be better with a 100 point scale than a 10.

[physics-fan3.14]

On 11/17/2022 at 6:11 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Im like you. If they did change it at all it would be better with a 100 point scale than a 10.

Really, it is the exact same... Literally the only difference is a 9.9 vs a 99. 

[Sandon]

   The current 1 to 70 numerical scale--it's not really Sheldon's--was approved by the ANA Board of Governors in 1986 and is the basis for the ANA grading guide.  The ANA does not claim it as its own intellectual property, and anyone can use it. So far as I know it is supposed to be the basis for the grades assigned by all reputable grading services, although they obviously deviate from its standards on a regular basis.  (I don't think that the ANA has ever approved the "plus" grades used for some years now by both NGC and PCGS or the "star" grades used by NGC.)

   I assume that NGC will claim the "NGCX" scale as proprietary and will not permit competing grading services or others to use it.  It appears that it is a marketing ploy by NGC to lure mass marketers to submit bulk orders of modern coins for sale to collectors of other items that are evaluated on a 1 to 10 scale.  As I initially wrote, it is likely to create more confusion about coin grading than already exists.

[Hoghead515]

On 11/17/2022 at 6:17 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Really, it is the exact same... Literally the only difference is a 9.9 vs a 99. 

Yea I guess your right. Im really in the leave it alone crowd. I was just saying if they did. But your right its actually pretty much identical. I didnt really think that through.  I really think everyone is used to the system we got now. It works so why change it. It would be aggravating trying to build a registry set with 2 different grading systems out there. There would be alot of buying coins and switching them over to one or the other. That may be something they have in mind also. Charge a fee to take old coin grades and put them in new plastic under the new system. 

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm really, really curious to hear some historically based perspective from @CaptHenway about what he thinks about this new development.

[gmarguli]

On 11/17/2022 at 3:07 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

There has been a push and desire to go to a 100 point grading scale to replace Sheldon for a very long time. Sheldon's scale didn't make much sense when it was first published, and it makes even less sense now. 

Why does a 10 or 100 point scale make more sense than a 70 point scale? The reality is that those numbers make no more sense than a 70 point scale or a 23 point scale. Our brains are wired to like round numbers and that is the only reason people promote a 10 point or 100 point scale.

Does a 10 point scale really make any sense when you have to break down the numbers by .1 and .5? The current most logical would be a 30 point scale since that is how many grade points we currently use. Or a scale were 1-100 inversely equaled the amount of wear, with 100 being unc (MS60). From 100 to a higher number you could take into account the varying quality of unc coins.

[RWB]

On 11/17/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I can't wait for the NGCX board game to come out

Already out --- but you misspelled "bored."

[physics-fan3.14]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:44 PM, gmarguli said:

Why does a 10 or 100 point scale make more sense than a 70 point scale? The reality is that those numbers make no more sense than a 70 point scale or a 23 point scale. Our brains are wired to like round numbers and that is the only reason people promote a 10 point or 100 point scale.

Does a 10 point scale really make any sense when you have to break down the numbers by .1 and .5? The current most logical would be a 30 point scale since that is how many grade points we currently use. Or a scale were 1-100 inversely equaled the amount of wear, with 100 being unc (MS60). From 100 to a higher number you could take into account the varying quality of unc coins.

Yes, the fact that we like and understand round numbers is a strong argument in favor of this. 

And I also agree that the arbitrary 0.1 and 0.5 divisors are too beholden to the Sheldon scale. Realistically, they just took the 70 points and crammed them into 10. But with plus grades, we've already got a whole more than 30! 

That is one big reason why I like the 100 point scale better.... you don't necessarily need 100 discrete points. It gives you breathing room to define grades without decimals and pluses and whatnot.

What we really need is a completely new way of thinking about coins, grades, and descriptions. 

 

[Lem E]

I’m not really seeing how this is that much different than the Sheldon scale. Both have 29 “grades” or levels if you exclude the plus and star grades. Seems if you compare both scales they aren’t really different aside from the language used. A grade of 1 is still the equivalent of a PO 1. It wouldn’t surprise me to see plus and star grades with this new scale as well. Maybe I am missing something here. 

[Crawtomatic]

I'm still forming an opinion on the concept.  My initial response last night when it came across my phone was pretty similar to all the 'don't like it' replies here already.  But after reading all of your replies, having a full 24 hours to consider it, and looking through the scale description more I'm less against it.  The grading scale can be a knowledge barrier for the casual collector when it's not in line with other collectibles.  I guess this addresses that.

2 initial thoughts that are still with me after 24 hours:

1. The design of the label.  Still don't really like it after looking at it again.  The placement of the grade may possibly benefit from shifting down to accommodate for coins with longer names.  Certain foreign coinage can have long names and abbreviations can get messy.  The grade font is a lil big.

2. X.  It's not 1995 anymore.  Why anybody in a marketing division is suggesting a stylized X on the end of any brand name is beyond me.  

My opinion isn't going to change what NGC does so I'll just be curious to see how this goes.  Mostly curious to see some crossovers from the old scale to the new scale.  It looks like they should be easy translations.  Wonder if they also drop the + with this.  

[Crawtomatic]

FYI, just showed the video and scale to my 12 year old son who's been haggling with dealer over IHC prices since he was 9.  He said the announcement video looked like a trailer you'd see in a movie theatre.  Then he had questions about the scale and translating it to the scale he knows.  He did point out there's less depth - for lack of a better word - in the shallow end of the pool on the NGCX scale.  Like, you're not going to see the differentiation between a 2, 4, 6, 8, & 10 when you only have 1, 1.5, 2.  So I pointed out it's supposed to be modern coins only.

But that's a hurdle to consider if introducing a new scale.  Scarcity often dictates playing in the low end.  And a '13-S Type 2 5c definitely has visible differences in that low range and the price differences to reflect it.  If you introduce a new scale it should be, well, scalable to apply to all coins.

BTW, only Mountain Dew has carte blanche to use the X suffix however and whenever they like.

[EagleRJO]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:50 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

That is one big reason why I like the 100 point scale better.... you don't necessarily need 100 discrete points. It gives you breathing room to define grades without decimals and pluses and whatnot.

Even though I am comfortable with decimals dealing with scientific stuff forever, I could get behind that as a little easier for collectors to digest, and just in general not having decimals, with a 10 thru 80 for the eight circulated Fair thru AU and then 90 to 100 for MS (vs 60 to 70 now), and a zero for unidentifiable. The only caveat being other hobbies do use a 10 point scale.

And I'm sure one of the first things you would see are conversion assistance tables and registry entries that could accept either system.

Edited November 28, 2022 by EagleRJO

[physics-fan3.14]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:16 PM, Crawtomatic said:

FYI, just showed the video and scale to my 12 year old son who's been haggling with dealer over IHC prices since he was 9.  He said the announcement video looked like a trailer you'd see in a movie theatre.  Then he had questions about the scale and translating it to the scale he knows.  He did point out there's less depth - for lack of a better word - in the shallow end of the pool on the NGCX scale.  Like, you're not going to see the differentiation between a 2, 4, 6, 8, & 10 when you only have 1, 1.5, 2.  So I pointed out it's supposed to be modern coins only.

But that's a hurdle to consider if introducing a new scale.  Scarcity often dictates playing in the low end.  And a '13-S Type 2 5c definitely has visible differences in that low range and the price differences to reflect it.  If you introduce a new scale it should be, well, scalable to apply to all coins.

BTW, only Mountain Dew has carte blanche to use the X suffix however and whenever they like.

I will point out that comics and baseball (sports) cards use the 10 point scale, and it seems to work well for them. Both of those types of collectibles are often subject to large amounts of wear. Being paper, they also degrade much more easily than coins. So, if it works for them, it can probably work for us too. 

Biggest problem... the coin industry has been around a bit longer, and you've got a lot of people used to the current system. Grading comics and video games is a very recent development, comparatively, and so they didn't have anything else to convert from. 

[Hoghead515]

Wonder how they would do + grades? Instead of a ms66+  would it be a 96.5? Or put a + or a star off to the side? Im wondering how they would figure those out. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Hoghead515

[EagleRJO]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:36 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Wonder how they would do + grades? Instead of a ms66+  would it be a 96.5? Or put a + or a star off to the side? Im wondering how they would figure those out. 

I think switching to a 90-100 MS scale from 60-70 with + modifiers you would need to keep those + modifiers for consistency and to avoid using decimals.

But with a 10 point system already announced it probably will be some type of additional half grade.

Edited November 18, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Crawtomatic]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:32 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

I will point out that comics and baseball (sports) cards use the 10 point scale, and it seems to work well for them. Both of those types of collectibles are often subject to large amounts of wear. Being paper, they also degrade much more easily than coins. So, if it works for them, it can probably work for us too. 

Biggest problem... the coin industry has been around a bit longer, and you've got a lot of people used to the current system. Grading comics and video games is a very recent development, comparatively, and so they didn't have anything else to convert from. 

Cards have a lot less points on the scale.  Only the half grades.  [Unless you consider that SGC used a 100 point scale well in the past they had to convert to the 10 point scale.  I feel like that was when they were part of the CCG umbrella but I'm not certain.)

This NGCX scale feels more akin to comics/magazine/publications grading.  Which I'd point out is about as well established as coin encapsulation in tenure.  It's definitely usable but needs more depth on the low end to capture everything we have in the Sheldon/ANA scale.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:44 PM, gmarguli said:

Why does a 10 or 100 point scale make more sense than a 70 point scale?....

Because the low-ballers will have the additional needed increments to compile a collection of low-ball coins.

[EagleRJO]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:44 PM, gmarguli said:

Why does a 10 or 100 point scale make more sense than a 70 point scale?

Forget talking about how having a more modern and logical 10 or 100 basis system could be used to fix clunky and illogical lower grade jumps, would align with condition scales for every other collectors hobby, and possibly provide added benefits for low-ballers of having coins that are even lower.

Inquiring minds want to know, following after zadok, if you are trying to say Bo Derek is really a 7? 😜 

[JT2]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

's funny...when I had the $$$ to pursue this hobby, I didn't have the time....when I had the time, I didn't have the $$$ !! 

Join the club.  i used to take on a second job just to go coin shopping.. You know like yearly  higher-ings that happen for the holiday's wxcwpt i would do it for the FUN show............  Why not its like Christmas isn't it?

[JT2]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:36 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Wonder how they would do + grades? Instead of a ms66+  would it be a 96.5? Or put a + or a star off to the side? Im wondering how they would figure those out. 

Dang HOG you called them out!!! that is for the "ENHANCED " Service... of course it costs extra!!  Then again that may not roll out with the initial offerings but in stage 2 or 3!!    hahahahahha

[Hoghead515]

Im just wondering what the cross over cost would be to cross a coin from the old style to the new.  If they cant compete in the same registry sets together then there will be people wanting to cross them over so they can. 

[“”]

I wouldn't mind seeing this on bullion releases from the mint and maybe modern coins. I would think that the market for modern releases far outweighs any other segment in the grading market for coins. Maybe NGC and other TPG's would set up a separate division for this market so leadtimes on classic coins could be reduced to more realistic timeframes as in the past.  As for the + grade and the * Star designation I think they are here to stay. That being said, I do not like that NGC treats the * Star designation as equivalent to the + grade in registry points. In my opinion, the *Star is not grade related.