New grades needed? Or just drop the AU and MS letters?

[TomB]

I look at this issue in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost of restructuring coin grading as we now know it? I am not talking about subtely shifting grading standards. Rather, I am talking about introducing a range of grades to a descriptor that were not there previously. If there is grading confusion now there will likely be chaos should this be undertaken.

 

The way I see this issue is that the coins that would be affected by an expansion in the AU grade range would be those that normally sell sight-seen currently, and, as such, knowledgeable buyers who value the eye appeal of the coin will buy the coin if the value they place on it intersects with the price it is offered at. I see no real gain by this expansion. The sight-unseen market would not be affected.

 

Alternatively, one might logically argue that the expansion of the AU grade range should usher in the era of the expansion of all grade ranges. Shoot, I've seen plenty of VF30 coins that are far superior to EF40 coins in terms of eye appeal; they just have more wear. So, where is the cut-off for this idea, and, if there is a cut-off, why is there one?

 

The idea that Registry coins in the AU55/58 range get less attention than they deserve is something to take up with the Registry, not with an overhaul of the numismatic system. However, even if this is addressed there will always be such examples. As some of you might recall, I recently sold a common date, silver Washington quarter graded MS67 for $10,000. This is, being generous, a $200 coin when it has generic eye appeal. Obviously, said coin was superb. In the Registry this coin will still only be worth around 200 points because it is still in an MS67 holder and, even if it gets an upgrade to MS68, it will only go to 800 or so points. Should this coin have been graded MS80 because of the eye appeal and associated high price tag? I don't think any of us believe that.

 

An alternative to expanding the AU numeric range could be to add another numeric descriptor to such outstanding AU55/58 coins. Perhaps something like AU58/14X where the 14X relates to the fact that this coin is so nice that it would cost approximately 14X what a generic AU58 for the date would cost. This keeps the grading system consistent in terms of existing nomenclature yet allows those who own such coins to broadcast it without having the coin be in a sight-seen environment.

[Hoot]

dropping the 2-letter mnemonic preface should serve to reduce confusion

 

This I have to disagree strongly with. The AU/MS designations should forma distinction between coins with some form of noticable rub and those that have no rub. Eliminating the designations would create greater, not lesser chaos.

 

Coinman1974 reflects the same opinion: I don't see why we would want to eliminate the distiction between a coin with wear and a coin without it. Sure there are cnsistency problems with deciding if its Au or Unc, but eliminating the distincion between the two all together would create a much larger gap.

 

I understand what you are saying about the rub or no rub debate, but if it is determined that a given coin has rub, even if it grades highly, the loss of the AU vs. MS is a loss of information that is important to many collectors.

 

As I said before, I'm for the overlap of the scales in order to relieve some of the strain of cramming together the grades of AU55-58 and MMS60-64, but I simply could never let go of the idea that MS connotes no rub. (They may be beaten to death, but they have no rub from circulation, storage, or the travails of collection).

 

Hoot

[EVillageProwler]

There is a judgement call that must be made by the grader on whether the coin is AU or Unc. Most of the time I agree with their assessments.

I think this supports my suggestion that we not speak in absolutes regarding the issue of wear. There are many coins where its status is simply too open to debate, even among the so-called experts.

 

If a coin has MS luster and just light friction and looks MS, they will make a judgement call that is is MS and grade it as MS60-62, even if it has MS66 surfaces. That is because they count friction as contact and take points off the grade.

What springs to my mind are those toned specimens that can range between a slider and ChMS because the nature of the toning on the highpoints have enough depth that they disrupt the luster. (I actually own a coin that has its grade going from MS63, the grade at which I bought it, to AU55 to MS61! It is an awesome-looking coin with unbelievable luster and eye appeal.)

 

With regard to AU coins that look MS, perhaps it is better to err on the side of caution by giving a coin AU58, instead of calling it UNC

Why is it better?

 

I think where the problem lies is in letting coins with friction grade MS. If you want a radical change in grading to solve the problem, it would be easier to simply stop letting coins with noticable friction be called MS.

But cabinet friction isn't wear from circulation...

 

This could seperate the AU's from the MS coins and there would no longer be as much of a problem in deciding if it is MS or not.

Maybe the problem is reduced; I'm not yet convinced of your optimism, but I will ruminate on this...

 

By eliminating AU and calling AU's MS, we will create a group of coins that are even more widely varied within their grade, and a new problem will have arisen. The elimination of the AU grade would be a major step in the wrong direction.

No one is suggesting this. The notion I support is to grade a coin based on quality solely. Right now, grading (at the AU/MS boundary) is a reflection of quality as well as the determination of wear. IMO, most AU and ChAU coins are, qualitatively, truly deserving of their current AU or ChAU grades (or even less!). I have seen a small %-age, and this mostly applies to classical coinage, of ChAU coins that are of 6X quality. Thus, the 2-letter mnemonic is irrelevent.

 

I expect an MS coin to have no wear and unbroken luster.

The determination of wear is highly subjective. And, nearly all classical coins below the gem level has trace amounts of broken luster. And, if you look at the sudden explosion of UNC ED's, you'll notice that nearly all of them are really AU6X specimens. (I.e., they're really ChAU coins that've been net-graded upwards due to their overwhelming quality.)

 

AU's do not have these characteristics so I don't want them graded MS.

Fine, but then you need to get the services to reverse the trend that they've begun within the past decade. I'm talking about PCGS as well as NGC.

 

It is true that these coins will often sell for MS money, but they are not truely equal to MS coins. They just have the same eye appeal.

So, if we grade solely on quality, then do you agree?

 

Keep in mind that the distinction between a slider and an MS is oftentimes arbitrary.

 

EVP

 

[EVillageProwler]

Alternatively, one might logically argue that the expansion of the AU grade range should usher in the era of the expansion of all grade ranges. Shoot, I've seen plenty of VF30 coins that are far superior to EF40 coins in terms of eye appeal; they just have more wear. So, where is the cut-off for this idea, and, if there is a cut-off, why is there one?

 

Actually, I already think there is a blurring of technical distinction at all the boundaries from MS60 and lower. (Actually, MS60 and higher too.)

 

I happen to like the ChVF grade because they look like EF coins but carry a VF price tag. The truth is that for most Bust series, there is no undisputed distinction between VF30 and EF40.

 

But, I focus on the AU/MS boundary because there is this traditional belief that we can determine with scientific certainty between a slider and a true UNC. The problem, of course, is aggravated when we remember that for classical coins, many of them came of the presses with impaired luster. Throw in toning, and it's hair-pulling time!

 

EVP

 

[EVillageProwler]

I understand what you are saying about the rub or no rub debate, but if it is determined that a given coin has rub, even if it grades highly, the loss of the AU vs. MS is a loss of information that is important to many collectors.

 

Ahhh, here's the rub!

 

I think those who specialize in Bust material would find this distinction to be not too important, since a large number of us focus on originality and luster.

 

Those who specialize in Morgans and 20th Cent material will find this AU/MS distinction more important because MS specimens abound and tend not to be as impaired of luster as the typical "MS" ED.

 

And, those who specialize in the in-between series will be like the 20% of Americans that form the swing vote in every national election!

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I'm certain grading of AU58's will remain exactly as it is, but you have to admit it's a good discussion item!

[DonHeath]

....yes it is. I think our opinions are partially shaped by what we collect. Although I would like the increased accuracy a larger AU scale would provide, should the grading services decide to implement the idea, most of the AU slabbed bargains would go away. Maybe I'll shut up now.

[cladking]

EVP: Actually this distinction between MS and AU is nearly meaningless to modern collectors since there are almost no AU clad coins for most of the circulating issues. It is very relevant in one way, however; with many of the clads even a VF can look better than a MS coin. Moderns can much more readily be graded on absolute scales than can most classics. Perhaps someday it will be tried with these coins first.

 

It is the lack of definitions of standards which allow grading to shift over time. Indeed, so long as coins are market graded there can be no other outcome. The services report the value/grade of a coin and then the market changes it's perceptions of the relative merits of strike/ luster/ eye appeal, etc. Even changes in the relative demand of the various grades can cause a change in the grading/price.

[coinman1794]

In reply to:

 

”I think this supports my suggestion that we not speak in absolutes regarding the issue of wear. There are many coins where its status is simply too open to debate, even among the so-called experts.”

 

Many people do want a distinction between coins with wear and no wear. An MS coins should not have any wear.

 

 

In reply to:

 

”Why is it better?”

 

It is better because then you don’t have All your AU coins MS. If you can’t tell for sure between wear and friction, then call it wear.

 

In reply to:

 

”But cabinet friction isn't wear from circulation...”

 

That is true, but, as you said, we can’t tell the difference!

 

In reply to:

 

”Maybe the problem is reduced; I'm not yet convinced of your optimism, but I will ruminate on this...”

 

Well I’m not at all convinced that AU’s should be called MS. It may solve the problem of MS vs. Au on some coins, but it will put all the other AU’s in the mix too. Some coins are very nice, but others are not. The grading services must us caution where friction is involved.

 

In reply to:

 

”No one is suggesting this. The notion I support is to grade a coin based on quality solely. Right now, grading (at the AU/MS boundary) is a reflection of quality as well as the determination of wear. IMO, most AU and ChAU coins are, qualitatively, truly deserving of their current AU or ChAU grades (or even less!). I have seen a small %-age, and this mostly applies to classical coinage, of ChAU coins that are of 6X quality. Thus, the 2-letter mnemonic is irrelevent.”

 

In other words, you want to get rid of AU. People don’t want coins graded MS with wear, so wear has to be a factor in grading. Again, I agree that some coins are very nice for AU, but because the distinction between friction/wear is not always possible, we can’t tell if they are true MS coins or not. I just don’t want to have to search thru MS coins trying to find MS coins! I know things aren’t perfect but at least we are trying to tell the difference! BTW, I am talking mostly about my specialty, Capped Bust halves. I know this mostly applies to classics, but a new standard would have to be applied to all coins. And, as far as later series’ are concerned, I can’t see any of the “no more AU” system working. For instance, no one wants a choice AU-58 Washington quarter graded MS64 (well maybe at PCGS )!

 

 

In reply to:

 

”The determination of wear is highly subjective. And, nearly all classical coins below the gem level has trace amounts of broken luster. And, if you look at the sudden explosion of UNC ED's, you'll notice that nearly all of them are really AU6X specimens. (I.e., they're really ChAU coins that've been net-graded upwards due to their overwhelming quality.)”

 

These are those borderline coins that could go either way. But, not all coins are that way. And, again, it doesn’t work for all series.

 

In reply to:

 

”Fine, but then you need to get the services to reverse the trend that they've begun within the past decade. I'm talking about PCGS as well as NGC.”

 

The services only grade the absolutely borderline pieces as MS. They aren’t putting MS grades on obvious AU’s. And, they still recognize a difference between AU/MS.

 

In reply to:

 

“So, if we grade solely on quality, then do you agree?”

 

No, because there is a difference between a friction free MS coin and a friction MS coin.

 

 

In reply to:

 

“Keep in mind that the distinction between a slider and an MS is oftentimes arbitrary.”

 

True, but often times, it is not, so we need a distinction between the grades.

 

 

 

--

 

[TomB]

I agree with you, EVP, in that many classical coinage series look spectacular in choice VF and they don't carry the burden of the EF grade. It is a lovely situation when one finds an attractive, choice VF coin for less than EF money.

[TomB]

TDN, this is exactly what the Boards are about; quality, well-thought discussion!