Will "MS-71" have to be invented?

[RWB]

We've all seen the sol-called "MS-70" coins that are far from perfection and MS-68 and MS-69 pieces with prominent cuts and dings; lower condition coins gradually slide upward such as the 1894-S dime that magically moved from MS-65 to MS-66.

 

Will the hobby Lords of Grading have to introduce MS-71, or maybe just add a "80s" series to compensate?

[comicdonna]

MS-70 Gem

[MarkFeld]

We've all seen the sol-called "MS-70" coins that are far from perfection and MS-68 and MS-69 pieces with prominent cuts and dings; lower condition coins gradually slide upward such as the 1894-S dime that magically moved from MS-65 to MS-66.

 

Will the hobby Lords of Grading have to introduce MS-71, or maybe just add a "80s" series to compensate?

 

Yes, I believe it will, and that it will be part of a 100 point grading system. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

We've all seen the sol-called "MS-70" coins that are far from perfection and MS-68 and MS-69 pieces with prominent cuts and dings; lower condition coins gradually slide upward such as the 1894-S dime that magically moved from MS-65 to MS-66.

 

Will the hobby Lords of Grading have to introduce MS-71, or maybe just add a "80s" series to compensate?

 

Yes, I believe it will, and that it will be part of a 100 point grading system. I hope I'm wrong.

 

You are not. Logic dictates that the evolution toward the 100 point system has to occur in order to fund growth of the business entities with the business model dependent on grading innovation. The present model has almost reached, and in some cases saturated, the original growth goals. There is only so many times a coin can be resubmitted and still fund a business plan. Even a very good used car runs out of interested buyers.

[WoodenJefferson]

There will be lots and lots of MS-99's out there still.

[numisport]

Then I'll wait for MS 101

[RWB]

"Then I'll wait for MS 101."

 

The class or the "grade?"

[johnny9434]

while were at it, we might as well go to 100 minutes in an hour to make it easier on everyone. like mark feld said I hope not

[coinman_23885]

"Then I'll wait for MS 101."

 

The class or the "grade?"

 

So many courses are graded on a curve these days. Like many non-science/engineering classes, numismatics too has been plagued by rampant grade inflation.

[Conder101]

The TPG's have already floated the 1 - 100 grading scale once and backed away from it. But I believe that eventually they will propose it again and it may take a couple more attempts but eventually they WILL adopt it.

[RWB]

...but does the scale matter if the endpoints are not fixed? Think of a standard thermometer -- the 0C and 100C are absolute and fixed. These affect other points of the scale since the interval between points is also defined. It seems the "problem" of coin grading is a failure to establish those three critical definitions and maintain them. Absent standard definitions, no grading scale will be of long-term use, and "grade inflation" will continue.

 

[mmissinglink]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

[mmissinglink]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

 

Is the invitation before or after the grader has undergone an ophthalmology exam and also passed testing of his/her technical knowledge in deciphering grades? After all, if a grader has not at a minimum accomplished these 2 simple tasks, then why grade at all? Surely the same variables you mention exist in market grading. Your comments support my position that TPG/4PG entities are an unregulated field of endeavor. It also should be noted the the TPGs have stated technical grading criteria in the past. It sort of cheapens our hobby when the only reliance is on an opinion that a person made and the person may or may not be physically and technically capable and could be subjected to undefined influences about their opinion.

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

 

Is the invitation before or after the grader has undergone an ophthalmology exam and also passed testing of his/her technical knowledge in deciphering grades? After all, if a grader has not at a minimum accomplished these 2 simple tasks, then why grade at all? Surely the same variables you mention exist in market grading. Your comments support my position that TPG/4PG entities are an unregulated field of endeavor. It also should be noted the the TPGs have stated technical grading criteria in the past. It sort of cheapens our hobby when the only reliance is on an opinion that a person made and the person may or may not be physically and technically capable and could be subjected to undefined influences about their opinion.

 

Change "grader" to "you" in my invitation. That way, we can get to it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

 

Is the invitation before or after the grader has undergone an ophthalmology exam and also passed testing of his/her technical knowledge in deciphering grades? After all, if a grader has not at a minimum accomplished these 2 simple tasks, then why grade at all? Surely the same variables you mention exist in market grading. Your comments support my position that TPG/4PG entities are an unregulated field of endeavor. It also should be noted the the TPGs have stated technical grading criteria in the past. It sort of cheapens our hobby when the only reliance is on an opinion that a person made and the person may or may not be physically and technically capable and could be subjected to undefined influences about their opinion.

 

Change "grader" to "you" in my invitation. That way, we can get to it.

 

Now, now, the subject was TPG graders. I am not. Nor can I pass an ophthalmology exam. I am not being paid by the public to judge the economic value of their property...and before somebody takes issue with whether or not the grader is giving an economic opinion as opposed to a market grading opinion without a $ amount, that is an untruth. One can't be separated from the other. Thus the criteria for rendering such an opinion should be regulated, IMHO.

[MarkFeld]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

 

Is the invitation before or after the grader has undergone an ophthalmology exam and also passed testing of his/her technical knowledge in deciphering grades? After all, if a grader has not at a minimum accomplished these 2 simple tasks, then why grade at all? Surely the same variables you mention exist in market grading. Your comments support my position that TPG/4PG entities are an unregulated field of endeavor. It also should be noted the the TPGs have stated technical grading criteria in the past. It sort of cheapens our hobby when the only reliance is on an opinion that a person made and the person may or may not be physically and technically capable and could be subjected to undefined influences about their opinion.

 

Change "grader" to "you" in my invitation. That way, we can get to it.

 

Now, now, the subject was TPG graders. I am not. Nor can I pass an ophthalmology exam. I am not being paid by the public to judge the economic value of their property...and before somebody takes issue with whether or not the grader is giving an economic opinion as opposed to a market grading opinion without a $ amount, that is an untruth. One can't be separated from the other. Thus the criteria for rendering such an opinion should be regulated, IMHO.

 

John, regulated and/or licensed or not, I don't think there is any way for graders to apply the ANA standards on an objective basis. From what I recall, many of the terms used failed to lend themselves to objective differentiation between one grade and the next.

 

I don't have a current or near current ANA guide, or would gladly select a coin and a grade description, as I invited you to do.

 

 

[RWB]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just because a 100-point grade scale is introduced, that won't mean the same thing will not happen as is alleged to be happening with the current grade scale (abuse by TPG's). So in X years, the same people who are complaining that the Sheldon scale is not working are going to be complaining that the 100-point scale isn't working. The scale is not the problem....the abuse of it apparently is. It seems to be a wrong headed approach to seek to replace one scale with another....why not simply address the abuse of the Sheldon scale?

 

The problem is not the scale....the problem is the "flexibility" of the TPG.

 

I don't see people advocating a change in the scale. But rather, predicting it, because, due to gradeflation, the grading companies are running out of room in the current one.

 

 

 

If true, then the solution is not to support TPG's that are guilty of this.

 

 

 

 

.

 

How does subjective...and market....grading = guilt? The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment. Over time, the record of the grader will be able to be traced and evaluated.

 

A drivers license for graders, so to speak. Accountability is important. There is none, at this time in the world of collectibles.

 

Subjectivity is one thing. Knowingly loosening up grading is another. Each person is free to form his or her own opinion, regarding whether that has been occurring.

 

I don't see any way that there will be a return to "technical standards". And in the case of uncirculated and Proof coins (as opposed to circulated ones) even so-called technical standards were/are largely subjective.

 

Mark, you are slightly contradicting yourself. but I understand your opinion.

Just touching on one aspect, do you disagree that technical standards were firmly established previously, via ANA? Of course there have been addenda and expansion of the standards, but, there is a firm basis, is there not? What is the firm basis of market grading other than opinion that may or not be based on healthy eyesight, and subject to manipulation whether intended or not?

 

What would be your objection to licensing graders and requiring at a minimum yearly ophthalmology exams and identifying graders by code and using the code on slabs?

 

John, I strongly disagree that technical standards (for uncirculated and Proof coins) were firmly established previously, by the ANA. Their published criteria for various MS/PR 60-70 grades leaves much room for subjectivity.

 

I didn't say that there is a firm basis for market grading.

 

It doesn't matter what I woudl think of licensing graders - I'm very confident that it isn't going to happen.

 

Of course it matters what you think. You of course decide not to opine. I suspect the TPG/4PG entities might find a need to do so, in the future. It is an unregulated market and a wild west. Times are changing.

 

We will disagree about the quality of technical standards. Improvements can easily be made to any weak spots that exist. Would you then object? Proof vs. uncirculated can certainly be settled...we did achieve space exploration. It has not occurred up to now, because it is not in the interest of TPG/4PG entities to do economically. I do think you seem to favor a subjective method, as opposed to a subjective method where the graders are held to a minimum standard of physical ability (and knowledge). I would have thought different.

 

John, I would love it if uncirculated and Proof coins could be graded by an objective standard.

 

I invite you to choose any coin type and any grade (other than 70) from the ANA grading guide. Then show me how that criteria would allow a grader to distinguish that grade from the next grade up or down, objectively.

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

 

Is the invitation before or after the grader has undergone an ophthalmology exam and also passed testing of his/her technical knowledge in deciphering grades? After all, if a grader has not at a minimum accomplished these 2 simple tasks, then why grade at all? Surely the same variables you mention exist in market grading. Your comments support my position that TPG/4PG entities are an unregulated field of endeavor. It also should be noted the the TPGs have stated technical grading criteria in the past. It sort of cheapens our hobby when the only reliance is on an opinion that a person made and the person may or may not be physically and technically capable and could be subjected to undefined influences about their opinion.

 

Change "grader" to "you" in my invitation. That way, we can get to it.

 

Now, now, the subject was TPG graders. I am not. Nor can I pass an ophthalmology exam. I am not being paid by the public to judge the economic value of their property...and before somebody takes issue with whether or not the grader is giving an economic opinion as opposed to a market grading opinion without a $ amount, that is an untruth. One can't be separated from the other. Thus the criteria for rendering such an opinion should be regulated, IMHO.

 

John, regulated and/or licensed or not, I don't think there is any way for graders to apply the ANA standards on an objective basis. From what I recall, many of the terms used failed to lend themselves to objective differentiation between one grade and the next.

 

I don't have a current or near current ANA guide, or would gladly select a coin and a grade description, as I invited you to do.

 

 

We have reached the stars. I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved. The times are changing and are changing rapidly. I am certain this will happen.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That was going to be my exact comparison.

[jom]

"Then I'll wait for MS 101."

 

The class or the "grade?"

 

So many courses are graded on a curve these days. Like many non-science/engineering classes, numismatics too has been plagued by rampant grade inflation.

 

Trust me when I tell you it's within science/engineering as well.

 

jom

[cladking]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

 

The graders are simply putting a number on the coin that corresponds to their opinion of the price. In order to actually grade a coin you'd have to grade each of its parameters.

 

Blame the collectors, not the graders.

[mmissinglink]

Is there a useful parallel with the American Philatelic Society's "Expertization" standards?

 

The US has NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that maintains objective standards for almost everything. Can't the numismatic hobby create a similar American Numismatic Standards Organization and include coin condition/grading? It would certainly help in legal cases: now many who claim to have been "ripped off" by unscrupulous sellers do not get justice because the sellers claim there are "No recognized standards - it's all opinion."

 

That's a good question/suggestion.

 

 

 

Collectors don't want their coins graded they want them priced.

Not true at all for me nor for the collectors I know. "Price" is completely subjective and largely irrelevant. What is relevant (in terms of market "value" of a coin) is the buyer who gets to determine the value. A collector can perceive his coin's value as X but this means little to nothing in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The only "cure" is to return to a technical standard that all can agree on, require every grader to be licensed and undergo a yearly (preferably every 6 months) exam by an Ophthalmologist and to have any slab/grading the grader performs be identified by a code on the slab that matches the license and the license follows the grader in the event he changes employment.

I think that's a good starting point for sure.

 

 

 

 

I believe that in general, there are too many variables (such as the size, location and number of marks/flaws/hairlines/spots, etc) from coin to coin, to be able to distinguish one grade from the next, according to ANAnstandards.

If the ANA standards are not adequate, then they ought to be improved by rigorously defining certain criteria that may be somewhat vague. I don't think discarding them is necessary.

 

 

 

I am sure a clear and precise standard can be achieved.

I am in agreement. If there's a will, there is almost certainly a way.

 

 

 

.