Do we need a 100 point scale?

[BillJones]

Considering the price difference on moderns is like 10X, over a point of grading, I'd rather have a more refined scale.

 

I can certainly understand an argument over whether a coin is worth $50 or $75 or $100, but when its over whether it's worth $50 or $500, points out a gaping hole in the grading system.

 

It shows in the pops too, I'd expect a good measurement system to have an approximate bell curve.

 

Not really. The reason for some of the very high prices is that registry buyers are chasing after the top coins so that they will get the most points for a given issue. I dare say that if a “perfect” coin got a score of 100, it would sell for far more than the near miss that lost out with a 99.

 

The other way to look at this is that there are more than few controversies over the current 11 point (from PR or MS – 60 to 70) grading system. If they can’t apply 11 grading posts consistently, do you really expect them to be more consistent when they have 41 points with which to play?

 

As for the gapping prices that result from one grading point, that’s the way things will always be. Finest known examples, weather it is a 2007 presidential dollar or 1793 Chain Ameri. Cent will always bring premium prices over their rivals.

[Keleum]

Finest known would always command a premium, but if the measurement is balanced and there is a good size population there should be an even distribution of coins up to the finest known.

 

IMO: The most useful market and technical grading scale would have a distibution more evenly balanced like a 300,100,50,5,1 kind of population and not a 455,1 population.

 

This would be the most useful in moderns, just because the populations are bigger.

[just-john]

If I own a grading company and new or thought that enought collectors would do resubmissions for coins that were already graded once by my company for a new point system grade.I would whole heartly support them by offering a discount of $5.00 to resubmit already slabed and graded coins. My laughter could be heard for miles and miles all the way to the bank.-----Remember DR Seuss's- The Star Belleyed Sneetches had belleys with star's OMG were all sneetches

[BillJones]

What is so wonderful about a 100 point scale for grading coins? I'd just like to know what the attraction is other than, "Everything else has a 100 point scale so why not coins?"

 

For those of us who have spent many thousands of dollars on coins and few thousand dollar on grading, we have no interest in being required to have our hand picked coins re-graded. The expense would be very high. It includes not only the grading fees but also the postage both ways which has gone through the roof. It also involves of risk to getting unfair grades, which is always a risk when you submit coins for grading.

 

We will also be risking our coins to being lost in the mail and mishandled by the grading services. Have any of you newbees read about the finger prints PCGS has put on many, many coins?

 

Before you try to impose you will on others, you should think about the consequences. The grading services are on your side because because they would love to re-invent the grading market. Those of us who don't need or want this service are rather tired of having it posed as a threat over our heads.

 

So come on. Give us some real answers as to why this 100 point graind scale is so wonderful. You owe that to us because we have supported this hobby for a long time, and before you hurt our financial position you should have some darn good reasons for supporting it.

 

And yes you can call this a

[hoard]

The concept of a 100 point scale is not good nor, in opinion, is it necessary for the good of coin grading. The introduction of an expanded point system serves no purpose but to multiple the margin of error in the grading. This is not good. Does anyone remember Ockham’s Razor? It is a principle that says the explanation of any occurrence should be made by the least assumptions possible. In mathematics, we used to say this was the law of succinctness. You try to make the theory as simple as possible by eliminating those variables that have no effect on the prediction of the theory.

 

In grading, you are allowing humans to apply criteria to establish a point grade. This, while based on established guidelines of wear, luster, damage, etc, is in fact still quite subjective. The introduction of more points will simply create greater error or the potential of greater dispute of the grade. It is known that all assumptions introduce possibilities of/for error; and if that assumption does not improve your theory’s accuracy at prediction of the outcome, it only increases the probability that your theory is wrong.

 

So getting back to my original thought, all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. People should just stop thinking about a more complex grading system and work toward 100% accuracy and consistency in the current 70 point system. That is my two cents worth.