Should professional graders be required to be certified by the ANA?

[CameoCC]

In a resent Coin World article (4/7/03 page 1), The ANA suggest that professional coin graders be certified by the ANA (American Numismatic Association).

 

Here is the link: ANA to certify professional graders due to disparity among services

 

Cheap - the link only shows the first sentence - you have to subscribe. Sorry.

 

What do you think?

 

Todd

[Pushkin-migration]

 

Yes!

[Wihlborg]

I think this is a good idea that is long overdue.

 

All the grading services should be grading to the same standards, not whatever arbitrary standard they may decide to use. If coins are not graded to the same standards by all of the grading companies there will never be consistency of grades, which is the purpose of having coins professionally graded in the first place.

 

John

[CameoCC]

I modified my first post here to give more information. Unfortunately, Coin World only shows the first sentence of the article. They want you to subscribe. Unfortunate.

 

Here is what Barry Stuppler said,

 

<< The problem, Stuppler explained, is that anyone, regardless of knowledge and qualifications, can open a third party coin grading service and hold themselves out to be experts. He added, All grading services ar not equal, but the public doesn't know that >>

 

Todd

[Beijim]

Yes!

 

The occasionally gross disparity in grading between the "Joe's Grading Service & Building Supply" grading services and the top shelf services is a detriment to the hobby and should be eliminated to the extent possible. Certifying that graders have completed a professional course of study and examination is a positive step in the right direction.

 

Of course, just because someone did what's necessary to obtain a framed diploma doesn't certify that the person will actually follow the practices to which the diploma attests. This would be like saying a pilot's license guarantees that its holder won't intentionally fly into a building. For this reason, I believe enforcement capability is required. That is, the ANA (or whatever controlling authority) should have explicit procedures for rescinding professional grader status from any person or organization demonstrably in violation of the standards to which the status applies.

 

Beijim

 

[Dermott]

Most definately they should if they plan on using the 70 point standard scale. If they follow "their own standards", they should not be allowed to use the standard 70 point grading scale. This is most important in the coin certification area as standardized grading from what I know was the entire point of slabbing coins in the first place.

 

Matt

R-197047

[gmarguli]

No. The ANA is not the savior to the coin industry. This is the organization that took money from ACG and refused to address that. The best we got was "these things take time" and we never heard from them again.

 

I do NOT trust the ANA.

 

Besides, who says the ANA is knowledgeable enough to certify the grading standards of others?

 

What % off of the so-called accurate grade is acceptable? Perhaps I think that super monster toning should bump a coin 1.5 grades. If they grade on a technical basis, I've just overgraded the coin as much at 2 grade points.

[Wihlborg]

Greg,

 

Do you really believe a coin should be bumped up 1.5 - 2 grade points because it has great toning?

 

I don't. I believe coins should be graded on a technical basis. I know we live with market grading now, but the 70 point grading system in use today never meant to take into account whether a coin has nice toning or not.

 

Does beautiful monster toning affect the eye appeal of a coin? Yes. Does beautiful monster toning affect the value of a coin? Definitely! But should it affect the grade of the coin? I don’t believe it should. Toning goes to the eye appeal of the coin, and what one person might see as beautiful toning someone else might think of as tarnish.

 

I think NGC is on the right track awarding coins with outstanding eye appeal the star to show that they possess outstanding eye appeal over and above whatever their technical grade may be.

 

I can see a PQ MS-64 coin being bumped up to MS-65 due to outstanding monster toning, but not a low or middle grade MS-64. I cannot however agree with any coin being bumped up two grades. I say give the coin the correct technical grade. Give it a star if it has outstanding eye appeal. But let the market decide how much of a premium to pay for super eye appeal.

 

John

 

[Dermott]

The ANA may not be the "saviour" of the coin market, but right now, it IS the accepted norm in terms of grading.

[gmarguli]

Wihlborg, eye appeal is part of the grade. In fact, I think many people would argue that it is the most important part of the grade. (I consider luster to be part of eye appeal).

 

NGC may, in my opinion, bump a coin for exceptional eye appeal as well as award the * designation.

 

I don't necessarily think that monster toning should bump a coin 1.5 grades, but a case for (2 grade points) could be made. As for a coin bumping two grades, lets assume that a technical (marks) grade for a coin would be MS65.9 - a liner in all respects (i.e. the coin could easily grade MS66 on any given day), but the coin has 100% undeniable monster toning and killer eye appeal. This is the type of coin that could easily be bumped to MS67 (two grade points). A liner coin given the benefit of the doubt and a bump for the monster toning/eye appeal.

 

I agree that a coin that would be MS65.2 should not be bumped to MS67 and wouldn't at all services not named ICG.

 

As for those people who see tarnish instead of toning, I don't think we or the grading services have to worry about them. These people aren't going to be looking at the monster coins.

[Wihlborg]

Greg,

 

I do agree that luster plays a big part in what gives a coin it's eye appeal and it is also probably the largest determining factor in grading higher mint state coins.

 

But I look at it this way; the 1 to 70 point Sheldon scale in use today is supposed to measure the amount of wear a coin has been subject to since the time it left the die, not whether or not it has nice toning.

 

Like I said we are living with market grading to some degree today and I can see a PQ coin being bumped to the next highest grade, but I think to bump a coin two points just because it may have nice toning is doing a disservice to the hobby. Where would this stop? Two points this year, maybe three points the next?

 

I know I would not buy a coin that I felt was over graded by two points even if it had nice toning.

 

A MS-65 coin with nice toning should be graded the same as a MS-65 coin that is white, and the individual buyer should be the one to decide the premium he or she is will to pay for something they find attractive over and above the technical grade.

 

Just my opinion

 

John

 

[DonHeath]

Tough choice, market grading vs. technical grading. Market grading is almost an appraisal, and technical grading precludes sight unseen trading. Sophie's choice.

[Wihlborg]

Hi Don,

 

Market grading is almost an appraisal, and technical grading precludes sight unseen trading.

 

My point exactly. What market grading tries to do is set a price based upon what a coin is perceived to be worth. Technical grading on the other hand tells the actual grade of the coin.

 

I guess the question is should the grading companies be appraisers or graders?

 

Now, I know that part of having a coin professionally graded in the first place is to help set a value on a coin. But I believe that a coin should be graded on a technical scale, which will give it a value based upon the rarity of whatever grade the coin is assigned. Then if the coin has some other attribute that some may find desirable such as great toning, let the market decide the premium to be paid.

 

This is different from the grading companies deciding for us. For example if a coin is really a MS-64 and goes for lets say $200 in that grade but is bumped up a couple of points to MS-66 just because it has nice toning and an MS-66 goes for $500 than the grading company just decided for us that the premium is $300 for this coin. It may be worth a premium of $300 to one person but not another.

 

I don’t have a problem with anyone paying a premium for a beautifully toned coin, but I do believe they should know what they are really getting. If a MS-64 coin is in a MS-66 holder just because it has nice toning, someone interested in buying that coin might not know that it is really only an MS-64 and they are paying $300 as a premium for the toning.

 

Now lets say someone bought that coin and is now looking to sell it. Who’s to say that someone

else will ever want to pay $300 over the actual grade of the coin? And that's just to break even. I can hear the dealer now, this coin is over graded, I can only give you…….

 

 

John

 

[GDJMSP]

No. The ANA is not the savior to the coin industry. This is the organization that took money from ACG and refused to address that. The best we got was "these things take time" and we never heard from them again.

 

I will admit it did take a rather long time - but I think we have finally heard from them regarding their opinion of ACG's grading ability.

 

I do NOT trust the ANA.

 

I can understand why you don't trust them - I can also understand why there are those who don't trust the grading companies. But who can we trust ?

 

Grading companies came about because collectors could not trust the grades being assigned by dealers & other collectors. Grading companies were supposed to be the disinterested 3rd party that would assign an honest & accurate grade to a coin so that those buying the slabbed coins could be assured they were getting their money's worth. But is that the case today ?

 

Besides, who says the ANA is knowledgeable enough to certify the grading standards of others?

 

Perhaps they are - perhaps they are not - this is a subject open to debate. For the sake of argument - let's assume they are not. Then who is ?? Who wrote the grading standards in the first place ? The ANA has their's - PhotoGrade has their's - PCGS has their's - NGC has their's and so on & so on.

 

It is pretty much an accepted fact that just about everybody - the various grading companies and any or all of the numismatic organizations have different grading standards. But is that how it should be ? I don't think so. I think there should only be one - and that everyone should adhere to them. The problem is they don't. And we as the collectors and the buyers of coins suffer for it.

 

What % off of the so-called accurate grade is acceptable? Perhaps I think that super monster toning should bump a coin 1.5 grades. If they grade on a technical basis, I've just overgraded the coin as much at 2 grade points.

 

The acceptable percentage that grade can be off is something that would have to be predetermined before the certification process. What that percentage is I don't know. But I would think it should be very close.

 

You make a good point about toning and eye appeal. And eye appeal is and should be in my opinion a part of the grading criteria. But eye appeal when it comes to toning is something that is very subjective and can only be determined by the individual. So I don't think that toning, in and of itself, should play a part in determining the grade of a coin. I think it would be best to leave it to the market to account for toning and any additonal premium that it may or may not bring to given coin.

 

Be all that as it may - I would find it hard to believe that anyone who particiapates in the numismatic field would disagree with the idea that there are problems needing addressed in the grading industry. Or that it would not be to the benefit of us as collectors to have these problems solved. Talk about these problems and distrust of the grading industry as a whole has been around as long as grading companies have existed. But what has ever been done about it ?

 

Last year the PNG issued their alert stating that not all grading companies are equal - something that just about all of us know. The next event of any consequence was the ACG/ Barry Stuppler hearings held by the ANA. We all know how that turned out. And now we have the ANA announcing that it will certify coin graders.

 

Is this the end or the cure-all for the problems within the grading industry ? No of course not. But it is, in my opinion a step in the right direction. The events I mention above are all steps in the right direction - we just need more of them.

 

Will we ever achieve total and absolute equality when it comes to grading standards & the grades assigned to coins by all of the grading companies ? I doubt it - I don't think such a thing is possible. But I do think that with proper training & certification of graders - and continued oversight of the grading companies by an independent organization to ensure consistentcy & accuracy that we can get very close. Perhaps in time we will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisfuccione]

As for those people who see tarnish instead of toning, I don't think we or the grading services have to worry about them. These people aren't going to be looking at the monster coins.

 

If you are working on a registry set is it fair if you have a ms66 coin and someone enters a ms66 coin and because it is toned it gets bumped up to a ms67?

 

Perhaps they are - perhaps they are not - this is a subject open to debate. For the sake of argument - let's assume they are not. Then who is ?? Who wrote the grading standards in the first place ? The ANA has their's - PhotoGrade has their's - PCGS has their's - NGC has their's and so on & so on.

 

That is how ACG has been able to do everything that they have been doing for so long with thier PHOTOSLAB? Shouldn't there be one standard. The closet thing to a standard right now is the ANA guideline.

 

For this reason, I believe enforcement capability is required. That is, the ANA (or whatever controlling authority) should have explicit procedures for rescinding professional grader status from any person or organization demonstrably in violation of the standards to which the status applies.

 

I agree with that to a certin degree. With out an enforcement clause it becomes toothless. The thing I would like to see happen is have PNG back this and have them be part of the education and enforcement.

 

CHRIS

[Hoot]

I also agree that there needs to be an impartial authority in coin grading and the practices of third party grading companies. I definitely do not think this should be be PNG, as there is a direct conflict of interest in that organization - they are dealers, after all. The ANA? I do not know if the ANA should take on such a role, but perhaps they could be a central authority in enforcing it, as some folks have suggested above.

 

I think there needs to be more than a trivial program put in place here. There is a study in numismatics that is required and it is something on the level of a technical Associates or Bachelors education. Indeed, this is illustrated by the practitioners themselves, having years of experience in the field and extensive numismatic knowledge. This requires an independent program to be established, however, and I am unsure that there is currently the kind of backing necessary to construct a program on this level, given the current infastructure of institutionalized education. It would almost have to be a spinoff of the leading grading companies themselves. This would be tricky, at best, as there again is a conflict of interest involved. Studies in numismatics, as have been in place at our mainstream colleges would be another possibility, but they would have to have a strick emphasis on the structuring of a standard, the administration of such a program, and the creation of a community of acceptance of their standards and practices in the third party grading services and the ANA. Tough.

 

As for technical grading, the reason it is not the accepted standard is that it does not work. To illustrate, simply consider strike and lustre. As for strike, it does not play into technical grading. A coin, as struck of the presses, is a 70 grade. Once it comes into contact with other coins and the outer environment, it starts to be degraded technically by gathering marks, rub, etc. For example, San Francisco and Denver buffalo nickels of the early to mid 1920s are all poorly struck compared to the rest of the series or their Philadelphia contemporaries. Strike keeps the grades on these coins appropriately limited. Technically, that is not to be considered, but I'm glad it is - I simply would not pay current prices for a weakly struck coin from this era in a high technical grade. Some of these coins would grade MS67 or higher due to their technical "off the press" qualities, but they don't due to a poor strike. As for lustre, it moves a coin around in grade all the time. Sheldon would have recognized this for chocolate brown early coppers with amazing mint state lustre, indicating good copper, good planchet manufacture, strong strike, and a high state of preservation of the thin surfaces that impart good lustre. These aspects are considered in market grading much more so than technical grading. A poorly made planchet with bad copper could still have made for a technically perfect cent with poor lustre. Should that coin have the same grade as the former? I'd hope not, and the grading standards should reflect that in the final analysis of grade.

 

The clinical aspects of grading require a depth of education that is currently not formally in place and I think it should be created outside of the current hobby-based infastructure.

 

Hoot

[Wihlborg]

Hoot,

 

You bring up a couple of very good points about STRICT technical grading. I agree that things like strike and planchet quality need to be considered when determining the grade of a coin and for these reasons strict technical grading would not work in the marketplace today. This is the reason the grading companies use market grading, and to be clear when I referred to technical grading in my other posts on this subject I did not mean to say that coins should be graded on a strict technical basis and even made note of the fact that we live with market grading today.

 

What I was trying to convey is that I don’t believe a coin should receive as much as a 2-point higher grade just because it possesses beautiful toning which I might add is a subjective quality. So when I say that coins should be graded technically what I really mean is that I believe all coins whether toned or blast white should be graded to the same standards taking luster, strike, marks, planchet quality, etc. into account but not giving extra points to a coin for toning. A MS-65 white coin should be the same as a MS-65 toned one.

 

I would love to hear any other thoughts you may have on the subject.

 

John

 

[Hoot]

John - I'd agree with you about the designation of points based on toning or blast white characteristics. This is simply because I think those attributes get more or less attention over time due to shifting whims and interests of the collecting community - sort of like the preferred colors of cars. That's why I like the NGC star designation - it does not imply grade, rather simply a sense of whether the coin has great eye appeal, toned or untoned. Nuansical.

 

Hoot

[Wihlborg]

Agreed! I also like the idea of the NGC star designation and think this is the best way to award a coin with great eye appeal for it's grade.

 

John

[michael]

no nono no no no no no no no no no no no

 

now if the ana would like to give a stamp of approval to the services they recommend for overall fairness and market acceptance

 

then yes yes yes

 

sincerely michael