Grading thoughts

[stgecko]

There's something about grading that has bothered me before I even collected coins. IMO If the very first coin off the die can be considered perfect then any coin that matches that original coin should be considered a 70. The definition of 70 needs to be changed. If in the 1900's, for example, you feel you have just the best looking coin that the mint can make. Then I think 70. 

Don't get me started on perfect 70's with extra info that somehow makes their 70 better than a plain 70. A 70 "Early Release" is no different than the plain 70. I can't stand it when I see one in the Price Guide that's worth more with that Early Release remark. I mean their both 70!

I'm done ranting or was it raving?

[bstrauss3]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[asdfgh]

I completely agree with the rant about  "Early Release". The fact that the mint sent you coins in the first month  they were available does not mean anything. Many times the mint has already struck all that they are going to make. The fact that you got a box right away does not mean anything about the coin. You could in fact be getting that last one struck. For most of the Commemorative coins the mintage is so low that they probably struck all of them on the same day. Same goes for 1st day of issue.

[coinman1794]

On 5/16/2017 at 6:14 PM, stgecko said:

There's something about grading that has bothered me before I even collected coins. IMO If the very first coin off the die can be considered perfect then any coin that matches that original coin should be considered a 70. The definition of 70 needs to be changed. If in the 1900's, for example, you feel you have just the best looking coin that the mint can make. Then I think 70. 

Don't get me started on perfect 70's with extra info that somehow makes their 70 better than a plain 70. A 70 "Early Release" is no different than the plain 70. I can't stand it when I see one in the Price Guide that's worth more with that Early Release remark. I mean their both 70!

I'm done ranting or was it raving?

The definition of a 70 used by the grading services is a coin that appears exactly as it was made, when magnified at 5x. It can have imperfections if those imperfections were on the dies.

[numisport]

A while back before they started grading 70, some coins that were 69 grade were actually perfect or nearly so. I recommend looking for those coins and never spend premium money for that 70 coin because some have flaws anyway.

[World Colonial]

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 6:14 PM, stgecko said:

If in the 1900's, for example, you feel you have just the best looking coin that the mint can make. Then I think 70. 

Why limit it to the 1900's?  Under the reasoning you apply, it should apply to coins from any period regardless of location.

To use the criteria you are describing would render this grade meaningless.  Of course, since only common coins ever receive a 70 and there are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of others which look identical or essentially so, it is a contrived significance anyway.

To a limited extent, I believe the TPG (NGC and PCGS) already do what you prefer, but just with all other grades.  I've seen many coins with incomplete, weak or terrible strikes whose grades don't make any sense.

This past weekend, I noticed that NGC has now graded a handful of Guatemala pillar 1/2, one, two and four reales (1754-1771) in AU or MS,  If I ever see the MS-64 or MS-65, it still won't surprise me if the details are substantially missing, as occurs with practically all of the few decent but lower grade coins I have ever seen.  But yes, it's probably the best this mint could produce at the time.

[RWB]

RE: "If in the 1900's, for example, you feel you have just the best looking coin that the mint can make. Then I think 70."

Unfortunately, that is an unknown now and was back then, also.

[stgecko]

Thanks all for your opinions. I think it's an interesting topic.