Do we need more strike designations? 2 2

[erwindoc]

Already have FS, FB/FT, FH, and FBL for Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt and Mercury dimes, SLQ and Franklin halves.  This covers lots of popular series in the 20th century, but leaves off lots of others.  Is it time to get more added for other series?  Personally, I would like something added for coins in the Barber series and Liberty nickels and think that stars around the rim would be a good one to add.  Maybe even Walking liberty halves with a thumb or skirt lines.  Thoughts?

[Coinbuf]

I think we have too many already and need to eliminate most.  The problem is that most of those designations have little to do with how strong the strike is imo and were created to sell more coins.

[erwindoc]

8 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I think we have too many already and need to eliminate most.  The problem is that most of those designations have little to do with how strong the strike is imo and were created to sell more coins.

While I would agree with you to some degree, there are series where the designation could have something to do with it.  Take the Walking Liberty series.  They are notorious for being weakly struck at the thumb and skirt.  The Liberty nickels are know for having several weak stars at the rim.  There are probably more examples that are escaping me at the moment.  The FBL and FS are the ones I like the least as it has such a small portion of the design and on the reverse.  Id like Full Shield Rivets over Full Head on my SLQs, but that one is probably not going to change at all. 

[Coinbuf]

I totally agree with you on the shield rivets over the full head on SLQ's, I just think that placing so much focus on one design element can lead buyer to ignore the full coin.  Take the full thumb or skirt, while not often I have seen those well defined and yet the cap and hair curls are quite blended.   And I an also in complete agreement that there is no going back and while I would not be in favor of more I would not be surprised to see additional designations somewhere down the line.

[Zebo]

22 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I think we have too many already and need to eliminate most.  The problem is that most of those designations have little to do with how strong the strike is imo and were created to sell more coins.

It's just like government social programs - once you start them, even though initially they might be temporary, they never end them. So forget about elimating the ones we have already 🚅🛅 the horse has already left the barn.

[MarkFeld]

We didn’t need any in the first place and we don’t need more, now. Such designations place far too much emphasis on one area of the coin at the exclusion of all others. Look at a coin and decide for yourself whether it meets your personal preferences.

[Henri Charriere]

[Aside:  My attitude has always been if it doesn't apply, let it fly.  In the United States, we have states,  commonwealths, parishes and districts. Should we have a uniform system of citation for the sake of consistency? How many languages and dialects are spoken in the world? Should we all adopt Esperanto -- or Chinese, since a few billion people already speak that language?

I don't begrudge anyone their preoccupation with Full Bell Lines, Full Steps and First Strikes. It's all very interesting, but just not for me.  Taken to its logical conclusion, standardization would deprive the coin collecting community of many of the varieties and variables that make this hobby so interesting.]

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Quintus Arrius
Add final bracket; add word and hyphens

[RWB]

Agree completely with Mr. Feld.

The designations refer to specific design elements and do not make a good indicator of overall detail.

[James_OldeTowne]

Please please please... NO MORE DESIGNATIONS.  Trying to refine something that is SUBJECTIVE to an infinite degree only worsens the hobby with useless noise.

[Henri Charriere]

I never thought I would have to defend something I don't even like but how would more strike designations impinge on the average type collector who has managed to reckon with seventy different grades?  

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Please please please... NO MORE DESIGNATIONS.  Trying to refine something that is SUBJECTIVE to an infinite degree only worsens the hobby with useless noise.

I first became aware that we had probably “jumped the shark” on strike designations when several newbies starting asking about the wrong ones on the wrong coins, like full steps on the Lincoln Memorial. That was like an alarm bell ringing.

[MAULEMALL]

I personally think there should be a depth designation for the navel on the 1917 SLQ..

[James_OldeTowne]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I never thought I would have to defend something I don't even like but how would more strike designations impinge on the average type collector who has managed to reckon with seventy different grades?  

Seventy??  It's MUCH worse than that.  Let's take an imaginary trip three years into the future when Morgan dollars now qualify for a new strike designation called: Full Ear Wax, or "FEW" for short.  For JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE, you might have at least the following permutations:

MS-63
MS-63 PL
MS-63 DMPL
MS-63+
MS-63+ PL
MS-63+ DMPL
MS-63 FEW
MS-63 PL FEW
MS-63 DMPL FEW
MS-63+ FEW
MS-63+ PL FEW
MS-63+ DMPL FEW

That's TWELVE different columns of bid/ask values on your greysheet, and not only that - the non-plus grades qualify for CAC stickers, bringing you now to EIGHTEEN VALUE points.

FOR JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE!

And THIS now gets multiplied by ten for the ten possible grade levels (I'm skipping MS-70) which brings us to grand total of one-hundred-eighty grade stratums .... JUST within the mint-state range for Morgan dollars.

The day is coming when it'll be impossible to even print a greysheet or view one on a screen - you'll have to download an app, input all the numbers and tacked on designations, and let it ping a supercomputer to spit out the results of a mystery formula to tell you what your 1881-S MS-63 prooflike FEW Morgan dollar retails for exactly $147.28 .... at least for the next three minutes.

Edited September 9, 2020 by James_OldeTowne

[World Colonial]

17 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I think we have too many already and need to eliminate most.  The problem is that most of those designations have little to do with how strong the strike is imo and were created to sell more coins.

Presumably, these designations already reflected how a particular series was collected before the TPG started assigning it.  Or not?

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, RWB said:

Agree completely with Mr. Feld.

The designations refer to specific design elements and do not make a good indicator of overall detail.

This practice logically only exists to create an artificial challenge.  It doesn't exist anywhere except in the US and never heard of it when I started collecting in the mid-70's.

Same thing with all other specialization on the most widely collected 20th century and later US coinage: TPG grades, toned coins and minor die varieties (excluding those traditionally included in the Red Book).  

[gmarguli]

Sounds like the TPG have failed us by not providing enough breakdown on the coin and forcing us to have some knowledge about the coin. I propose the following solution:

Split the grades. We can have MS64, MS64+, MS64.5, and MS64.5+. 

How about a 10 point scale (with split grades and the + designation of course) for strike and luster. Strike: 7.5 / Luster: 8.5+

Now some people will argue that strike and luster is part of the grade, but those people are old fogies that don't understand modern numismatics. 

We could also have 10 point scales (again, also split with + designation) for CAM/DCAM/PL/DPL/RD.

I can just see it now, people arguing that their PR66.5+,  9/10 DCAM,  9/10 Red,  9.5/10 Strike,  8.5+/10 Luster  *  coin really should have been a 9/10 luster. 

[bsshog40]

I do have to agree that there may be far too many designations out there already, but I can't go as far to say that we don't need them. In todays market, designations on a coin today could mean a considerable value difference. It's not much different than the discussion of the "Star" and "Plus" designations. As I already stated, probably too many of them but I don't collect all coin series. I would imagine that someone who collect Roosevelts like the FB or FT designation but don't collect Jefferson's could probably care less about the FS designation and vice versa. 

[RWB]

TPGs are not (or should not be) the deciders and stabilizers of hobby practices and language. That should be one of the roles of an organization of collectors (who are the real consumers of the hobby). Of course, ANA - long ago and far away when the organization accepted and acted on its charter responsibilities - once did that; and the hobby benefited from that structure and clarity. Now we have to contend with piles of sales and marketing heaped on top of recycled moldy bologna and rotten Colorado tomatoes.

[Insider]

1 hour ago, gmarguli said:

Sounds like the TPG have failed us by not providing enough breakdown on the coin and forcing us to have some knowledge about the coin. I propose the following solution:

Split the grades. We can have MS64, MS64+, MS64.5, and MS64.5+. 

How about a 10 point scale (with split grades and the + designation of course) for strike and luster. Strike: 7.5 / Luster: 8.5+

Now some people will argue that strike and luster is part of the grade, but those people are old fogies that don't understand modern numismatics. 

We could also have 10 point scales (again, also split with + designation) for CAM/DCAM/PL/DPL/RD.

I can just see it now, people arguing that their PR66.5+,  9/10 DCAM,  9/10 Red,  9.5/10 Strike,  8.5+/10 Luster  *  coin really should have been a 9/10 luster. 

First, just a technicality.  "Split grading" was a method of grading used at the time by the pre-1986 TPGS.  Both sides of a coin were graded separately.  IMO, it should still be in use because I can better imagine and would rather own an MS-61/67 coin than an MS-61/61 (MS-61).

Next.  IMO, there is nothing wrong with designations. It helps a person imagine what a coin looks like when you cannot see it.  Humm, that's what assigning a grade does.  Over the years, designations have sprung up in order to rank (price) one coin over another.  I believe in the beginning, many of these designations were devised by the groups collecting a specific series.  As they caught on, the grading services kept them.

Long ago when I was doing research on Franklin's I learned that the Franklin specialists insisted that in order to be a true FBL coin the two wisps of hair by Franklin's temple ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN needed to be split!    Count you blessings.    

[MarkFeld]

3 hours ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Seventy??  It's MUCH worse than that.  Let's take an imaginary trip three years into the future when Morgan dollars now qualify for a new strike designation called: Full Ear Wax, or "FEW" for short.  For JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE, you might have at least the following permutations:

MS-63
MS-63 PL
MS-63 DMPL
MS-63+
MS-63+ PL
MS-63+ DMPL
MS-63 FEW
MS-63 PL FEW
MS-63 DMPL FEW
MS-63+ FEW
MS-63+ PL FEW
MS-63+ DMPL FEW

That's TWELVE different columns of bid/ask values on your greysheet, and not only that - the non-plus grades qualify for CAC stickers, bringing you now to EIGHTEEN VALUE points.

FOR JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE!

And THIS now gets multiplied by ten for the ten possible grade levels (I'm skipping MS-70) which brings us to grand total of one-hundred-eighty grade stratums .... JUST within the mint-state range for Morgan dollars.

The day is coming when it'll be impossible to even print a greysheet or view one on a screen - you'll have to download an app, input all the numbers and tacked on designations, and let it ping a supercomputer to spit out the results of a mystery formula to tell you what your 1881-S MS-63 prooflike FEW Morgan dollar retails for exactly $147.28 .... at least for the next three minutes.

While you might feel that there are too many grade and designation slots, the number shouldn’t be exaggerated. If you’re going to count plus grades (as is only fair), you shouldn’t also include whole number grades on the 70 point scale, which aren’t utilized. For example, 59, 57, 56, 54, 52, 51, 49, 48, 47, 46 and so on.

[Just Bob]

34 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

While you might feel that there are too many grade and designation slots, the number shouldn’t be exaggerated. If you’re going to count plus grades (as is only fair), you shouldn’t also include whole number grades on the 70 point scale, which aren’t utilized. For example, 59, 57, 56, 54, 52, 51, 49, 48, 47, 46 and so on.

The way I read his post, he did not exaggerate in the way you suggested. He specifically said,"ten possible grade levels," and "JUST within the mint state range," and never mentioned any of the numbers you listed, or any other number below MS60. He only referred to the whole numbers from 60 to 69, which are utilized by all major grading companies.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Just Bob

[MarkFeld]

16 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

The way I read his post, he did not exaggerate in the way you suggested. He specifically said,"ten possible grade levels," and "JUST within the mint state range," and never mentioned any of the numbers you listed, or any other number below MS60. He only referred to the whole numbers from 60 to 69, which are utilized by all major grading companies.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but perhaps not. James started off by quoting someone else who had referenced “70 different grades”. And he didn’t take issue with that, but instead ran with it - “Seventy??  It's MUCH worse than that.“

Edited September 9, 2020 by MarkFeld

[physics-fan3.14]

3 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Presumably, these designations already reflected how a particular series was collected before the TPG started assigning it.  Or not?

For some of them, yes. Some of them were pushed by marketers who have undue influence over the TPGs. For example, dimes had been collected by torch lines for a long time before the TPGs added it. Franklin collectors actually focused more on a legible "Pass & Stow" on the bell than on bell lines, but Rick Tomaska convinced them to designate FBL. 

There are some other series which already are collected by strike designations, but which aren't recognized by TPGs. Two prominent examples are Walkers with Full Thumb and SBAs with Full Talons. I understand why many people don't care for strike designations (and that's ok), but I personally am a fan of them. I understand why many people wouldn't want more of them, but in my opinion if a series is already collected that way, then adding a new strike designation at the TPG isn't going to fundamentally change the way the series is collected - but it will make it easier or more accessible. The counterpoint is, of course, that knowledgeable collectors are currently able to "cherrypick" the premium coins, and that will be harder if the TPG starts designating it. 

An idea I've tossed about for awhile is a generic "Full Strike" designation that would apply to any coin. 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by physics-fan3.14

[physics-fan3.14]

 

3 hours ago, gmarguli said:

Sounds like the TPG have failed us by not providing enough breakdown on the coin and forcing us to have some knowledge about the coin. I propose the following solution:

Split the grades. We can have MS64, MS64+, MS64.5, and MS64.5+. 

How about a 10 point scale (with split grades and the + designation of course) for strike and luster. Strike: 7.5 / Luster: 8.5+

Now some people will argue that strike and luster is part of the grade, but those people are old fogies that don't understand modern numismatics. 

We could also have 10 point scales (again, also split with + designation) for CAM/DCAM/PL/DPL/RD.

I can just see it now, people arguing that their PR66.5+,  9/10 DCAM,  9/10 Red,  9.5/10 Strike,  8.5+/10 Luster  *  coin really should have been a 9/10 luster. 

I realize that you are being entirely sarcastic with your post. 

However, I have long advocated for an informative breakdown of the grade (maybe on a 5 point scale). Give an individual score for Strike, Luster, Eye Appeal, and Contact Marks. During Guess the Grades over on CoinTalk, this is usually how I respond to the posts. (I'm actually not opposed to giving 2 scores, one for obverse and one for reverse - they are different sides, and often have different appearances). Sure, this would add complexity to any pricing model - but it would be far more useful in describing the coin than just saying "MS-63." 

NGC already does something like this with Ancient grading, giving a score on a 5 point scale for Strike and Surfaces (and then an overall descriptor score for wear, such as F or VF). I'm advocating for expanding that model. 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

if a series is already collected that way, then adding a new strike designation at the TPG isn't going to fundamentally change the way the series is collected - but it will make it easier or more accessible.

Agree

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

The counterpoint is, of course, that knowledgeable collectors are currently able to "cherrypick" the premium coins, and that will be harder if the TPG starts designating it. 

This is the primary reason I consider it counterproductive.  The primary thing I see it would "accomplish" is inflating the price level and making even more US coins less affordable to the typical collector.  Those who own it now would realize a potential one time windfall with the presumably additional counterpoint that anyone else who  cherrypicks it would be financially rewarded for their effort.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

An idea I've tossed about for awhile is a generic "Full Strike" designation that would apply to any coin. 

For the primary series I collect now (Spanish colonial pillars) and many other "older" world coins, I am in favor of abandoning the Sheldon scale and adopting the one in use for NGC Ancients.  I'd use it for US colonials also.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

NGC already does something like this with Ancient grading, giving a score on a 5 point scale for Strike and Surfaces (and then an overall descriptor score for wear, such as F or VF). I'm advocating for expanding that model. 

I don't see any point in applying an NGC Ancients type scale to US coinage across the board.  Most of it is too common and I don't think it's needed for coins where with such a large proportion, there is no practical difference with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of others.

I'd go in the opposite direction.  I'd get rid of the "+" and many of the MS grades, reverting to what I saw in use when I first became aware of numerical grades in the late 70's: 60, 63, 65 and 67.

Per my prior post res[ponding to yours, the reason I have a difference of opinion with a noticeable minority (though maybe low proportion) of world coinage is because the Sheldon scale is US centric and no one elsewhere (outside the US) uses it or at least didn't except where it is now prevalent due to TPG adoption (China, South Africa).

The TPG also apply a US centric standard of "market acceptability" when it should be obvious that some coins in "details" holders are "market acceptable" to those who actually collect it, whether the TPG think so or not.  This the biggest disagreement I have with TPG grading. 

I have seen countless US colonials and early large cents with obvious problems in straight graded holders; far worse than those I own or seen for sale.  I presume this US coinage is "net graded": and that's a far more appropriate thing to do as far as I am concerned, since I think the TPG are correct that buyers presumably do consider it "market acceptable".  (For Spanish and Spanish colonials, it's also how I have seen the coins graded in Spanish auctions.)  It's a double standard with pillars and many other world coins.  Claiming a coin isn't "market acceptable" due to "surface hairlines" or some other trivial "defect" when the coin in question is one of the few decent ones in existence is ridiculous.

No, I don't think anything I described here is going to change.  Too much money to lose in grading fees and by those who already own certain coins in current holders.

[VKurtB]

17 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

However, I have long advocated for an informative breakdown of the grade (maybe on a 5 point scale). Give an individual score for Strike, Luster, Eye Appeal, and Contact Marks. During Guess the Grades over on CoinTalk, this is usually how I respond to the posts. (I'm actually not opposed to giving 2 scores, one for obverse and one for reverse - they are different sides, and often have different appearances)

You see? This is precisely the type of thing I'm talking about when I say Jason is "out of touch" and "all out of relevancy". Rick Snow did a Money Talk at the 2016 World's Fair of Money in August in Anaheim, CA, advocating a system virtually identical to what Jason has proposed here.  He drew a pretty decent sized crowd, too. Mostly of similar aged "insurgents" too. Purists. Old-timers. Well guess what has happened toward implementing it. Rick Snow now uses it internally, and in his database of "Eagle Eye" stickered coins, presumably. Nobody else ever adopted it. Look, being an "insurgent" or "purist" is all well and good. It also tends to lead you into irrelevance. This is a major TPGS firm's board, is it not?

Edited September 10, 2020 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

32 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

You see? This is precisely the type of thing I'm talking about when I say Jason is "out of touch" and "all out of relevancy". Rick Snow did a Money Talk at the 2016 World's Fair of Money in August in Anaheim, CA, advocating a system virtually identical to what Jason has proposed here.  He drew a pretty decent sized crowd, too. Mostly of similar aged "insurgents" too. Purists. Old-timers. Well guess what has happened toward implementing it. Rick Snow now uses it internally, and in his database of "Eagle Eye" stickered coins, presumably. Nobody else ever adopted it. Look, being an "insurgent" or "purist" is all well and good. It also tends to lead you into irrelevance. This is a major TPGS firm's board, is it not?

Never, never, never, reason with anyone who has denounced you publicly as a troll.

The most effective way to deal with Jason Poe, a/k/a "pi-guy,"  is to wholeheartedly throw your support behind him and everything he says.

Besides, your health is more important than being right.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Quintus Arrius
Add word

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

The most effective way to deal with Jason Poe, a/k/a "pi-guy,"  is to wholeheartedly throw your support behind him and everything he says.

You obviously never knew a guy who grew up in the Philly media market. We don't kill our critics with kindness, we SMACK 'em upside the head.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

You see? This is precisely the type of thing I'm talking about when I say Jason is "out of touch" and "all out of relevancy". Rick Snow did a Money Talk at the 2016 World's Fair of Money in August in Anaheim, CA, advocating a system virtually identical to what Jason has proposed here.  He drew a pretty decent sized crowd, too. Mostly of similar aged "insurgents" too. Purists. Old-timers. Well guess what has happened toward implementing it. Rick Snow now uses it internally, and in his database of "Eagle Eye" stickered coins, presumably. Nobody else ever adopted it. Look, being an "insurgent" or "purist" is all well and good. It also tends to lead you into irrelevance. This is a major TPGS firm's board, is it not?

I have heard that the TPG (specifically PCGS) floated the idea at least once of changing to a 100 point scale, presumably so that collectors can waste their money resubmitting everything a second time to maintain the collection's marketability.

I could see a similar system to this one being proposed to bridge a future transition, one I would not favor, as I consider it pointless and not adding anything.  Keep the existing 70 point scale and add a second with 30 points as a supplement.