New Coin Grading Scale. 1 1

[Errorists]

Harder to get a 10 as opposed to an old 70??

[VKurtB]

On 12/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, Errorists said:

Harder to get a 10 as opposed to an old 70??

No. Same. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/8/2022 at 11:38 AM, Errorists said:

Harder to get a 10 as opposed to an old 70??

Ideally, no... but who's to know?  It's still too early to predict acceptance. If it is applied to moderns, it's do-able. (Just as a scale of 5 works fine with ancients.)  With decimalization of the scale, wider applications are possible. But the line between an Edsel, and an Apple, is fine. [I have to admit the choice of scarlet to hype NGCX was a clever, eye-catching marketing choice.]  

[RWB]

I'm not really sure how a scale can grade coins....Scales are used mainly to keep fish warm and measure weight. Hmmmmm...?

[Errorists]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Ideally, no... but who's to know?  It's still too early to predict acceptance. If it is applied to moderns, it's do-able. (Just as a scale of 5 works fine with ancients.)  With decimalization of the scale, wider applications are possible. But the line between an Edsel, and an Apple, is fine. [I have to admit the choice of scarlet to hype NGCX was a clever, eye-catching marketing choice.]  

If a 10 is equated to a 70 then is a 9 equated to a 69? 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:16 PM, Errorists said:

If a 10 is equated to a 70 then is a 9 equated to a 69? 

From my vantage point, with decimalization, a 9 would equal 6.3, but that would defeat the whole purpose of developing and implementing a new scale.  I fail to see how this would appeal to a broader base of new collectors generally unacquainted with any scales.  If we are talking moderns, we need to dispense with the micro-distinctions entirely. But the engine powering financialization is thirsty and insatiable.  I guess we will have to wait to see how this all plays out in the new year.

[Sandon]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:16 PM, Errorists said:

If a 10 is equated to a 70 then is a 9 equated to a 69? 

No.  It appears that an NGCX 9.9 would be equivalent to a "69". An NGCX 9.0 would be equivalent to a "60".  Circulated grades go from 1 to 8.8. See NGCX - An New 10-Point Grading Scale for Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com).  Personally, I think NGCX will simply introduce more confusion about grading.

 

[Errorists]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:28 PM, Sandon said:

No.  It appears that an NGCX 9.9 would be equivalent to a "69". An NGCX 9.0 would be equivalent to a "60".  Circulated grades go from 1 to 8.8. See NGCX - An New 10-Point Grading Scale for Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com).  Personally, I think NGCX will simply introduce more confusion about grading.

 

Thanks for clarification and the link..

[VKurtB]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:16 PM, Errorists said:

If a 10 is equated to a 70 then is a 9 equated to a 69? 

Again, no. 9.9 would be the 69. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:26 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

From my vantage point, with decimalization, a 9 would equal 6.3, but that would defeat the whole purpose of developing and implementing a new scale.  I fail to see how this would appeal to a broader base of new collectors generally unacquainted with any scales.  If we are talking moderns, we need to dispense with the micro-distinctions entirely. But the engine powering financialization is thirsty and insatiable.  I guess we will have to wait to see how this all plays out in the new year.

It is not designed for anyone who knows anything about grading coins. It’s designed for comic book and sports card fans, to get them comfortable with modern coins. 

[RWB]

There are really two "bins" of data.

Circulated, where there is a true continuum based on measurable wear, and

Uncirculated, where there is a continuum only of surface marks and not the base coin itself.

These imply there should be 2 ratings with one beginning is "identifiable" and ending with "About uncirculated" (real not the phony TPGs now tout), and "uncirculated" beginning with lots of marks scrapes, etc. and ending with "Perfect - as it came from the dies."

[VKurtB]

On 12/9/2022 at 3:19 PM, RWB said:

"Perfect - as it came from the dies."

NO!!!!! As it came from the dies is IRRELEVANT. A full strike on a flawless flan/planchet from a flawless die is ALSO required for the top grade. A crummy die precludes a 70. So does a bad planchet. A typical San Francisco early to mid 1940’s Walker half can NEVER be a 70, because of the weak strikes. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by VKurtB

[RWB]

NGCX appears to copy the present 60-70 uncirculated coin range into its 90-100 range. Then, it spreads circulated coins currently occupying 1-58, into zero to 89 (or maybe 1 to 89). The result is to give sellers more tiny increments in which to confuse and price gouge collectors. For the TPGs, it opens lots of "necessary" regrading submissions, thus increasing revenue by re-doing decades of paid grading events.

The small increment grading of circulated coins merely adds confusion and inconsistency to an already messed-up system. Almost every coin will have to be accompanied by an explanation of why it is "graded" 5.2 and not 5.3, and when combined with the absurdity of subjective/opinion in grades, the whole thing becomes a useless mess. (Well, more of a useless mess than it already is.)

Coin grading demands: 1) stability, 2) objectivity, 3) empirical data standards, and 4) consistency. This is something ANA tried to do in the 1980s, but then they got "spinus dissolvus" and sold out.

[Redline68]

[Errorists]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:33 AM, RWB said:

NGCX appears to copy the present 60-70 uncirculated coin range into its 90-100 range. Then, it spreads circulated coins currently occupying 1-58, into zero to 89 (or maybe 1 to 89). The result is to give sellers more tiny increments in which to confuse and price gouge collectors. For the TPGs, it opens lots of "necessary" regrading submissions, thus increasing revenue by re-doing decades of paid grading events.

The small increment grading of circulated coins merely adds confusion and inconsistency to an already messed-up system. Almost every coin will have to be accompanied by an explanation of why it is "graded" 5.2 and not 5.3, and when combined with the absurdity of subjective/opinion in grades, the whole thing becomes a useless mess. (Well, more of a useless mess than it already is.)

Coin grading demands: 1) stability, 2) objectivity, 3) empirical data standards, and 4) consistency. This is something ANA tried to do in the 1980s, but then they got "spinus dissolvus" and sold out.

So would a PF68 be equivalent to a PF9.8?

[Sandon]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:52 AM, Errorists said:

So would a PF68 be equivalent to a PF9.8?

   As I understand it, yes.  I would just call coins legitimately graded "68", "69", and "70" "Superb Gem" (proof or uncirculated, as the case may be) and leave it at that!

[RWB]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:52 AM, Errorists said:

So would a PF68 be equivalent to a PF9.8?

Just invert the "6" into a "9" -- all done.

[EagleRJO]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:51 PM, RWB said:

Just invert the "6" into a "9" -- all done.

And add a decimal point.  ... e.g. 60 = 9.0 and 69 = 9.9

For circulated grades it would be 1.0 to 8.9, but just like the current grading system not all of the possible numbers would be used (e.g. only 8.0, 8.3, 8.5 & 8.8 would be used for AU coins).

Edited December 10, 2022 by EagleRJO

[RWB]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:43 PM, EagleRJO said:

For circulated grades it would be 1.0 to 8.9, but just like the current grading system not all of the possible numbers would be used (e.g. only 8.0, 8.3, 8.5 & 8.8 would be used for AU coins).

Eventually they will be used, just a UNC was once only 60-63-65-67

[EagleRJO]

On 12/10/2022 at 5:31 PM, RWB said:

Eventually they will be used, just a UNC was once only 60-63-65-67

I have trouble telling the difference between an AU-50 (8.0) and an AU-53 (8.3).  Forget about being able to tell the difference between an 8.8 and 8.9.

[VKurtB]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:52 AM, Errorists said:

So would a PF68 be equivalent to a PF9.8?

Yup. But since collectors MAY NOT SUBMIT COINS, only about 10 large wholesale companies may, and it’s ALL going to be modern coins, don’t ever expect to see ANYTHING below about 9.2 or so. And not very often THAT low. It’ll be at least 75% in three grades - 9.8, 9.9, and 10. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by VKurtB

[RWB]

The infidelity of TPGs now makes "AU" just another fuzzy label....another opportunity for shysters to send off their EF coins (bought at EF offers) for relabeling as some version of "AU." This produces a huge asking price increase for no change in coin quality. Consumers get LESS than they paid for.

A legitimate "AU" coin shows only the slightest trace of abrasion and/or luster disturbance, Imagine a bank clerk pulling new quarters from a bag in 1900, counting out $10 and dropping them into a paper wrapper. That afternoon, one coin is slipped across a marble counter to a customer. That could be a real "AU" coin. Any additional abrasion or handling results in some form of EF or lower grade until it bottoms out as a "slick" identifiable as silver alloy about the diameter of a US quarter.

[VKurtB]

On 12/11/2022 at 11:34 AM, RWB said:

The infidelity of TPGs now makes "AU" just another fuzzy label....another opportunity for shysters to send off their EF coins (bought at EF offers) for relabeling as some version of "AU." This produces a huge asking price increase for no change in coin quality. Consumers get LESS than they paid for.

A legitimate "AU" coin shows only the slightest trace of abrasion and/or luster disturbance, Imagine a bank clerk pulling new quarters from a bag in 1900, counting out $10 and dropping them into a paper wrapper. That afternoon, one coin is slipped across a marble counter to a customer. That could be a real "AU" coin. Any additional abrasion or handling results in some form of EF or lower grade until it bottoms out as a "slick" identifiable as silver alloy about the diameter of a US quarter.

I bought an “XF” coin in Blackpool, England on December 4, 2019. (Chard’s) In the U.S., it graded MS65 at NGC. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by VKurtB

[PatriciaByrd]

On 12/9/2022 at 1:28 AM, Sandon said:

No.  It appears that an NGCX 9.9 would be equivalent to a "69". An NGCX 9.0 would be equivalent to a "60".  Circulated grades go from 1 to 8.8. See NGCX - An New 10-Point Grading Scale for Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com).  Personally, I think NGCX will simply introduce more confusion about grading.







 

Thanks for the link.

Edited April 7, 2023 by PatriciaByrd

[rrantique]

On 12/22/2022 at 9:22 AM, PatriciaByrd said:

Thanks for the link.

Welcome

[World Colonial]

On 12/11/2022 at 2:33 PM, VKurtB said:

I bought an “XF” coin in Blackpool, England on December 4, 2019. (Chard’s) In the U.S., it graded MS65 at NGC. 

I've bought a few of those as well.  Last one that i remember was graded EBC+ (XF+) from a Spanish auction which is an NGC MS-63 holder.  the color differs slightly on the high points (rub or fiction?) which is probably why the auction firm described it as they did.  Bought a few from London Coins about 15 years that were similar.

In my small sample size though, I haven't seen much consistency elsewhere either.