Very well thought out, and your argument makes complete sense to me.  But youre going to bruise your brain if you keep beating it against the wall.  :-)

On 9/24/2018 at 9:54 AM, dleonard-3 said:

Very well thought out, and your argument makes complete sense to me.  But you're going to bruise your brain if you keep beating it against the wall.  :-)

I totally agree.  Change is highly unlikely, however your observations are very relevant.

Collectors need to be aware that a single numeric grade that encompasses strike, surface and the ever subjective "eye appeal" is not sufficient by itself to determine value.   You still need to look at these and other aspects separately.  It's nice that NGC Ancients will do some of that for you, but there are now literally millions of PCGS, ANACS and NGC graded coins on the market, so the Sheldon 70 point grading system will be with us for a long time to come.  Even if you could magically switch to a new grading system starting today, you would still need to define equivalences between the new and old systems.

The numeric grades as defined by NGC are VERY general and cannot be applied equally to all coins.  I would highly recommend purchasing a copy of The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins edited by Kenneth Bressett.  This book goes into great detail about each numeric grade and all of the elements that go into determining a generic numeric grade.  It then applies those principles to all of the U.S. circulating coinage from half cents through $20 gold pieces.  All descriptions are also accompanied by full color photos.

One very important aspect that you did not mention in your definition of Strike is die state. A well struck coin from a fresh set of dies is much more appealing (and potentially more valuable) than and an equally well struck coin from highly deteriorated dies, yet by your definition, each should receive exactly the same numeric value for strike.  Of course you could always add yet another number to indicate die state.

Ultimately, I think people like a single number.  It certainly isn't perfect, but it does give you a general idea of what to expect and it provides a starting point for making comparisons.

Hello Coin928

Yes I have a copy of the ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins edited by Kenneth Bressett which I believe is a must have for in every numismatic library. I also owned a copy of Penny Whimsy by Dr. William Sheldon. And Dr. Sheldon never ever developed a grading system never mind a 70 point grading system that will be with us for a long time to come. Dr. Sheldon developed a methodology for pricing Early American Large Cents. This determination of a large cent’s value involved a few steps. First the value for every large cent would have to be developed in its Basel State (this is the lowest state of preservation in which you could still identify the Sheldon variety). Once these values are established you would then tell Dr. Sheldon the date of the large cent, its Sheldon number (or possibly he would determine it for you) and its adjectival grade (Good, VG, F, VF etc.). Dr. Sheldon would then find the Basel State value for that coin and multiply it by the value multiplier for the stated adjectival grade and determine the coin’s value. These value multipliers are what you and almost everyone else call the Sheldon grades. The value multiplier for Good was 4, VG =8 and so on. If you asked Dr. Sheldon to grade a coin he would have given you the appropriate adjectival grade based on the standards in use at the time and not a number.

Right now I accept that the NGC graders can competently Grade Surface and Strike according to the definitions defined at their web site all I am saying is it totally illogical to defend the argument that a strike for an MS 67 must have a surface that corresponds to an MS67. There is NO correlation between Strike and Surface. So if the NGC can in fact score strike and surface according to their own guidelines as I believe they can then simply grade the coin UNC and present the strike and surface scores determine by the graders – there is no extra work involve since it is something they have to do for every UNC coin (MS or Proof) they grade.

So all I am doing is asking for the grade to be broken down into its component values. This is not a new system in that I willing accept the standards used to determine grades but by presenting the information related to the components that makeup that grade you are providing the collector more info on what the collector is really getting.

I agree that worn dies can produce some ugly looking coins but NGC ancients has found a way of addressing such conditions (They add notes to the label for such a case it could be “Worn Dies”).

Look it NGC already says as part of grading any Uncirculated business strike or proof they score strike and surface. I personally want as much info as possible so I want that info that NGC generates before assigning a numerical designation. I know when I purchase ancients I will purchase a specimen with a strike of 5/5 and a surface 4/5 over one with a strike 4/5 and surface 5/5. With these two cases being so close together I prefer a bolder strike. Blending this info to a single number I feel cheats the collector of meaning information. Also I would never purchase either a MS or circulated ancient with either a surface or strike score below a 3/5. For me the scores defining condition related issues is just as important if not more important in some cases than the grade.

If people could so readily accept a grading system that never existed (the so called Sheldon Grading System) why do you believe they could not accept the same info developed for that system in a form that simply provides the collector more information?

My best regards

Ram,

Since you invaded what I consider my very private space I will tell you how I feel about your ranting on grading. To give you some background I to have been collecting

for 50 years. You and I have one thing in common we had to learn how to grade on our own because it was a matter of survival. The problem I have with what you are asking

is the complication of the subject. NGC and PCGS have brought some sense of order to a hobby that was in total chaos. Is their system perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not.

One of the most important things that these two companies have done is to get the collectors hands off of the coins and protect them in holders. More collectable coins have been

ruined by unknowledgeable collectors than anything else. The other thing that makes what they do so great is a platform from which you and I can easily tell our grandchildren

about coin collecting. Hands on is a thing that children require, and the coins are protected thru the whole collecting story.

To me these things have at least equal value to grading. I am afraid what you want will confuse the heck out anyone looking at the possibility of collecting coins.

Where do you stop your system. If there is a surface blemish do you add a 1 to 10 score to that and then raise or lower the score of the surface by a .1, .5, .9, etc.?

And what about  "EYE APPEAL"?  How are you going to put a 1 to 10 number on that baby. And don't tell me it is not part of grading. I have seen MS 66 coins with 

such bad toning that you can't even see the design. Coins I would not take as a gift. Another thing about grading that is so very hard to deal with is the fact that

individual collectors see differently from each other for many reasons. Just like you and I do. Lets not take a great thing and turn it into what it took away. CONFUSION!

The Swiss Knight, ME

Hello Swiss Knight (Cool moniker)

First I agree with you on the benefit provided by the holders used by the third party grading companies. I have accidentally damaged way to many coins by simply dropping them or dropping something onto them. In some of my early posts you will see I have nothing but praises for these holders.

As for your other comments I see you creating mountains where I don’t even see a mole hill.

As for the extraneous comments about eye appeal, toning and blemishes you must have missed where I said NGC should keep doing what they are doing now.

What I am against is NGC’s combining strike and surface conditions (which have nothing to do with grade or post production wear) to determine grade and the extremely naive assumption that a coin with a great strike must have a corresponding great surface as implied by their very own grading standards when there is absolutely no correlation between these two condition factors. Simply I want NGC to stop melding these condition factors and blending them into the grade. Simply condition and grade are totally separate and should be reported separately.

This resistance to change and insisting that current practice is good enough reminds me of a presentation I was part of at a symposium many-many years ago. The purpose was to present new technologies that would provide an approach to the current method of addressing an industry problem. The lead off speaker represented the leader in providing the existing technology and his argument was unique. He started off by showing the outside of some research center in Russia with a motto carved in granite (in Russian) above the entry doorway. We were told it translated to something like “Better is the enemy of good enough.” In other words, if it works don’t waste your time trying to make it better. This approach may explain why the U.S. defeated the Russians in the cold war. With this approach we had no justification to improve on the Model T Ford, countries developing the bullet train when we had proven steam locomotives, and why replace the land line telephone or get rid of vacuum tubes for transistors? In the late 1960’s my mother had breast cancer and had to have both breast removed. Thank god doctors did not maintain the concept that mastectomies work so don’t look for something better. Unlike Russia, in America it is not part of our nature to say “oh it is good enough.” If we can do better, we do better.

Best regards

Ram