What defines a "Conservative" or "Liberal" coin grader 1 1

[RWB]

12 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Roger, based on the reality and shortcomings of the current grading system - note, I didn’t say “grading standards” - I don’t see how anyone could possibly answer your question in a way that would be satisfactory to you. I get the sense that you weren’t really asking a question, as much as you were making a statement.

No. I was asking a question - but not getting answers (with a couple of exceptions). The terms are tossed about as if "everyone understands them," yet when asked, few have a meaningful response -- more like "floating definitions." This is a problem - especially when applied to pseudo-accurate numeric grading. That is: piling ambiguities does not improve a "system."

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, RWB said:

No. I was asking a question - but not getting answers (with a couple of exceptions). The terms are tossed about as if "everyone understands them," yet when asked, few have a meaningful response -- more like "floating definitions." This is a problem - especially when applied to pseudo-accurate numeric grading. That is: piling ambiguities does not improve a "system."

What could the answer be, other than the opinion of the person responding or his perception of what others think? ?

[RWB]

Just now, MarkFeld said:

What could the answer be, other than the opinion of the person responding or his perception of what others think? ?

Finding answers is why one asks questions; however, the answers might not be what the questioner expects.

Individuals have personal perceptions, but multiple individuals often share concepts. The result can be a consensus.

[MarkFeld]

18 minutes ago, RWB said:

Finding answers is why one asks questions; however, the answers might not be what the questioner expects.

Individuals have personal perceptions, but multiple individuals often share concepts. The result can be a consensus.

I understand that. But I get the impression that even though none of the replies were particularly surprising, you were (still) disappointed or bothered by them. Tell me if I'm mistaken about that.

I feel that you got what you should have expected, but that doesn't mean people don't care.

[VKurtB]

14 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Roger, based on the reality and shortcomings of the current grading system - note, I didn’t say “grading standards” - I don’t see how anyone could possibly answer your question in a way that would be satisfactory to you. I get the sense that you weren’t really asking a question, as much as you were making a statement.

+1. It's a pattern with Roger. He doesn't need to ask questions; he has all the answers already. 

[VKurtB]

15 hours ago, RWB said:

No. It's the flip side of recognized empirical standards, and clear separation of opinion from fact.

If you insist on insisting that all grading should come down to "nick picking", you've already lost me for all time. I would never support any system like that.

[VKurtB]

12 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think we can all agree that the current grading system has its flaws and the TPG's aren't perfect....that said.....we are definitely better off than we were before the TPGs came into being in the 1980's.

Who knows what might have been created or what frauds perpetraded since the Internet came into being the last 20 years without the TPGs ?  You see all the fraud with them....without them ?

Ugghhh..........................

 

+1. Yup, when we did only technical grading, I actually stepped away from the hobby. I far prefer what the TPGS firms have given us.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

I understand that. But I get the impression that even though none of the replies were particularly surprising, you were (still) disappointed or bothered by them. Tell me if I'm mistaken about that.

I feel that you got what you should have expected, but that doesn't mean people don't care.

But I don't care about what I call "paleograding".

[VKurtB]

15 hours ago, RWB said:

No. It's the flip side of recognized empirical standards, and clear separation of opinion from fact.

So maybe a coin has exactly 17 contact marks. I literally do not care, nor could I EVER care about that.

[Insider]

Did I miss something?  Is any one besides me waiting for Roger to post his opinion of the two words!

Roger: 

What defines a "Conservative" or "Liberal" coin grader

Thanks!

 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Insider

[GoldFinger1969]

But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective.

Many here don't mind and even pay up for toned coins.  Personally, for the most part, I hate toned coins.  I'd probably grade a coin 1 or 2 grades lower for toning.  Am I wrong ?

How about grading 1 or 2 small gouges on a Saint-Gaudens field.....vs......lots of little dings ?  How many "dings" equals a gouge ?

How about clean fields but dents and dings on the rim ?  Would 2 coins each with 5 or 6 dings grade the same if one had them in the fields and the other the rims ?  What about on the devices ?

Back to Saints....do you equally weight the reverse and obverse ?  Does a ding/gouge in the obverse field penalize more than a ding/gouge on the reverse with the Eagle ?  And if it's in the fields is it worse than in stray areas like the word LIBERTY ?  What about the details in Liberty's face ?

I don't think technical grading answers these questions (maybe I'm wrong).  But all these are subjective and I think each grader weights them differently, starting with the Obverse vs. Reverse preference.

Edited October 20, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[Insider]

3 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective.

Many here don't mind and even pay up for toned coins.  Personally, for the most part, I hate toned coins.  I'd probably grade a coin 1 or 2 grades lower for toning.  Am I wrong ?

How about grading 1 or 2 small gouges on a Saint-Gaudens field.....vs......lots of little dings ?  How many "dings" equals a gouge ?

How about clean fields but dents and dings on the rim ?  Would 2 coins each with 5 or 6 dings grade the same if one had them in the fields and the other the rims ?  What about on the devices ?

Back to Saints....do you equally weight the reverse and obverse ?  Does a ding/gouge in the obverse field penalize more than a ding/gouge on the reverse with the Eagle ?  And if it's in the fields is it worse than in stray areas like the word LIBERTY ?  What about the details in Liberty's face ?

I don't think technical grading answers these questions (maybe I'm wrong).  But all these are subjective and I think each grader weights them differently, starting with the Obverse vs. Reverse preference.

But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective.

Thinking about it, you are correct but not as subjective as you might think.  Remember, the grading called "Technical Grading" by the ANA when they moved the authentication service to CO WAS NOT!  No one out there had a clue about the system I devised but the "name" sounded good.    

[VKurtB]

I've found that even terms used in strict technical grading are subjective, and therefore this entire exercise is utterly pointless. Like what, you say? Try "prime focal area" of a coin. As someone who has literally printed MILLIONS of photographic negatives, with all sorts of technologies, even HAVING a "prime focal area" is a liability, and "beating that out of you" is a goal of that industry's training. I have been trained NOT TO HAVE a prime focal area. It's why photographic printers (the people) often were taught to print with the negatives upside down, so that we didn't get absorbed into "subject watching". Then 35mm camera makers invented cameras that loaded right to left, and screwed that up. When I look at a coin these days, my training has caused me to scan an entire side without a prime focal area, so there's that. When I took the ANA's "Grading Coins Today" course, those "prime focal area" pages were amusing to me, but not useful.

Even in the act of taking photographs, most people lack what is called "frame awareness" and get all sorts of unintended stuff on the periphery of their pictures. I tend to amaze my wife with my "composition skill". Nope, it's just frame awareness. I get what I intend to get because of it, unlike the helpful but incompetent fellow who took our picture on the Swilcan Bridge at St. Andrews. Scanning an entire surface or frame agnostically is a learned skill.

Edited October 20, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I understand that. But I get the impression that even though none of the replies were particularly surprising, you were (still) disappointed or bothered by them. Tell me if I'm mistaken about that.

I feel that you got what you should have expected, but that doesn't mean people don't care.

Yes, you are mistaken.

I assumed nothing about possible replies, so there was neither surprise or disappointment. They are nebulous which might also be useful to know. My personal opinion was/is not part of the question or responses, even though some seem to have assumed that.

[RWB]

RE: "But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective."

If "technical grading" is based on an accepted, defined standard and empirical data, then it is subjective only in the standard, not the data.

Science is constantly refining standards to remove variables and incorporate measurement improvements. The original definition of the meter was The meter was originally defined as "one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle." That was followed by increasingly precise and invariable definitions:

• from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the “International Prototype Meter”) preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris;
• from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meter]

If there is no initial point, or no support for acceptance or improvement, then the little house of cards falls - which "grade inflation" and continued disagreement about basic issues indicate has happened.

Edited October 20, 2020 by RWB

[Insider]

3 hours ago, Insider said:

Did I miss something?  Is any one besides me waiting for Roger to post his opinion of the two words!

Roger: 

What defines a "Conservative" or "Liberal" coin grader

Thanks!

 

 

You still have not answered this!  

2 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective."

If "technical grading" is based on an accepted, defined standard and empirical data, then it is subjective only in the standard, not the data.

Science is constantly refining standards to remove variables and incorporate measurement improvements. The original definition of the meter was The meter was originally defined as "one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle." That was followed by increasingly precise and invariable definitions:

• from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the “International Prototype Meter”) preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris;
• from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meter]

If there is no initial point, or no support for acceptance or improvement, then the little house of cards falls - which "grade inflation" and continued disagreement about basic issues indicate has happened.

A standard can be defined.  It is a set standard.  In your example, as the science of measurement improved, the way to measure the standard changed.  The same has happened to grading.  The powerful folks determining the standard changed.   Nevertheless, let's consider the obsolete standard of MS = no trace of wear.  The unchanging data from the coin at the minute it is graded will indicate it either is MS or not.  However, the subjectivity of the examiner (and all that involves such as magnification, greed, etc...) allows subjectivity to enter the equation.  All the people that grade coins are not the same.  Lots of collectors rely on the TPGS.

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

You still have not answered this!  

A standard can be defined.  It is a set standard.  In your example, as the science of measurement improved, the way to measure the standard changed.  The same has happened to grading.  The powerful folks determining the standard changed.   Nevertheless, let's consider the obsolete standard of MS = no trace of wear.  The unchanging data from the coin at the minute it is graded will indicate it either is MS or not.  However, the subjectivity of the examiner (and all that involves such as magnification, greed, etc...) allows subjectivity to enter the equation.  All the people that grade coins are not the same.  Lots of collectors rely on the TPGS.

I'm not certain which of your worlds disturbs me more, Roger's contact mark counting "nick picking" world, or your "if it's good enough for Bugatti, it's good enough for me" world. All things considered, I'll take grading the way NGC does it today, thank you very much. And I put my money where my mouth is, too. I can't think of ANYTHING about coin grading that has NOT fantastically improved since "the good old days". As if...

Edited October 20, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

RE: "A standard can be defined.  It is a set standard.  In your example, as the science of measurement improved, the way to measure the standard changed.  The same has happened to grading."

Nope. I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling that the writer of the above is clear about the meaning of a "standard" ...but anyway, it does not matter. There is no standard and never has been. In part that is because more money can be made by float than fix. Deception is easy that way.

[GoldFinger1969]

11 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective."

If "technical grading" is based on an accepted, defined standard and empirical data, then it is subjective only in the standard, not the data.

But no 2 coins are exactly alike to the naked eye -- unless they are maybe MS70 or MS69, and in the case of non-modern coins those coins can be counted on 1 or 2 hands (usually  ).

So go back to my post above.  The grading HAS to be subjective because the DATA is not exact.  You can agree that 2 Saints-Gaudens DE's are both MS67 but one has more dings on the obverse and the other has them on the reverse. 

Dings on the devices vs. dings in the fields vs. dings on the rim.....same, worse, better ?

No 2 coins get dinged up or scuffed the same way.  Major similarities aside, you have to weight the differences.  And that is definitely subjective.

[RWB]

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But no 2 coins are exactly alike to the naked eye -- unless they are maybe MS70 or MS69, and in the case of non-modern coins those coins can be counted on 1 or 2 hands (usually  ).

So go back to my post above.  The grading HAS to be subjective because the DATA is not exact.  You can agree that 2 Saints-Gaudens DE's are both MS67 but one has more dings on the obverse and the other has them on the reverse. 

Dings on the devices vs. dings in the fields vs. dings on the rim.....same, worse, better ?

No 2 coins get dinged up or scuffed the same way.  Major similarities aside, you have to weight the differences.  And that is definitely subjective.

Agreed. With condition established by empirical standards, the subjective elements naturally become value adjustments based on the kinds of things you mentioned. TPGs no longer involved in valuing a coin; that is not their role.

The purposes are:

1. Consistency of condition determination.
2. Separation of condition from value.
3. Freedom from arbitrary market forces.
4. Placement of subjective factors in the market.

The results should be:

1. Consistent grade regardless of when or by whom graded.
2. Absence of grade inflation.
3. Prices that reflect the real subjective market value of each piece.

[GoldFinger1969]

Roger, and wouldn't you say FOR THE MOST PART...those condition have been met ?

Pre-TPGs, who knows how accurate or fair most dealers or coin shows treated buyers.  Maybe they were accurate 50% of the time....75%....90%.   I have no idea.  But I know lots of times coins were not off by numbers but by entire conditions (MS vs. AU vs. EX vs. VF, etc.).

But I'd say today the TPGs get it right...what.....95% of the time ?  99% ?  99.9% ?  

Depends IMO on if you want to give them a 1 or 2 grade increment leeway to gauge the accuracy.

[GoldFinger1969]

As an example, Roger, I don't think it matters to much if a common Saint is graded MS62 or MS63 -- it's going to track bullion at either grade  Heck, it can go down to MS60 or even AU58 and not suffer a price hit.

OTOH, there's a HUGE jump in value from MS66 to MS67 for commons like the 1923-D.  The coin jumps from about $3,500 to $12,000.  So you just don't see a sloppy misgrade of a coin like the 1923-D at inflection points.  Maybe it's just because they naturally tighten up or are more careful or spend more time grading as you approach the mythical 70 grade level or other inflection points.

It's at those levels that you are more likely to see a "+" or "*" than at MS62 or MS61.

Edited October 21, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Roger, and wouldn't you say FOR THE MOST PART...those condition have been met ?

Pre-TPGs, who knows how accurate or fair most dealers or coin shows treated buyers.  Maybe they were accurate 50% of the time....75%....90%.   I have no idea.  But I know lots of times coins were not off by numbers but by entire conditions (MS vs. AU vs. EX vs. VF, etc.).

But I'd say today the TPGs get it right...what.....95% of the time ?  99% ?  99.9% ?  

Depends IMO on if you want to give them a 1 or 2 grade increment leeway to gauge the accuracy.

I realize that your post was directed to Roger. However, while I think that the major grading companies do an excellent job overall, your “get it right” percentages seem way too high. If they were accurate, there wouldn’t be so many upgrades and such inconsistent results. 
And if you’re willing to allow 1-2 grade increment leeway, you’re ignoring a significant part of the supposed reason and potential benefit in grading. Additionally, that would pretty much make a mockery of plus grading.

[RWB]

I do not feel any of the purposes or results have been accomplished.

All of the so-called grades are biased and tainted by extraneous beliefs, assumptions, and greed.

The only way to have truly honest coin/medal "grading," is to deliberately separate grading functions from market forces/valuation. That requires clear, known standards, uniformly applied; and total separation of condition assessment from all value opinion or assumption.

 

[RWB]

RE: "... that would pretty much make a mockery of plus grading."

Well, yes, because that is what 'plus grading' is. ALL assigned grades are bins with ranges. Little + or - or other squiggles are all based on these bins having no error margin, or having consistent overlap. The bins are nothing more than margin of error deviations from a non-existent "standard."

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As an example, Roger, I don't think it matters to much if a common Saint is graded MS62 or MS63 -- it's going to track bullion at either grade  Heck, it can go down to MS60 or even AU58 and not suffer a price hit.

OTOH, there's a HUGE jump in value from MS66 to MS67 for commons like the 1923-D.  The coin jumps from about $3,500 to $12,000.  So you just don't see a sloppy misgrade of a coin like the 1923-D at inflection points.  Maybe it's just because they naturally tighten up or are more careful or spend more time grading as you approach the mythical 70 grade level or other inflection points.

It's at those levels that you are more likely to see a "+" or "*" than at MS62 or MS61.

Granted, there isn’t much of a price/value spread between MS62-63 Saints, or for that matter, other contiguous grades of different generic gold coins. But that shouldn’t render the idea of accurate grading for such coins, any less important. The potential attached value to any particular grade coin shouldn’t be an excuse for sloppy, thigh or lose grading.

[GoldFinger1969]

13 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I realize that your post was directed to Roger. However, while I think that the major grading companies do an excellent job overall, your “get it right” percentages seem way too high. If they were accurate, there wouldn’t be so many upgrades and such inconsistent results. 
And if you’re willing to allow 1-2 grade increment leeway, you’re ignoring a significant part of the supposed reason and potential benefit in grading. Additionally, that would pretty much make a mockery of plus grading.

Fair points, Mark.  I was also including the bulk modern grades there.

My numbers are probably too high if we go by pre-1980 or pre-1964 classic coins, agreed.

 

[MarkFeld]

5 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Fair points, Mark.  I was also including the bulk modern grades there.

My numbers are probably too high if we go by pre-1980 or pre-1964 classic coins, agreed.

 

Lots of modern coins grade 69 one or more times, but 70 the next time. They’re not necessarily immune, either. And generally, they should be much easier to grade than classics.

[GoldFinger1969]

56 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Granted, there isn’t much of a price/value spread between MS62-63 Saints, or for that matter, other contiguous grades of different generic gold coins. But that shouldn’t render the idea of accurate grading for such coins, any less important. The potential attached value to any particular grade coin shouldn’t be an excuse for sloppy, thigh or lose grading.

No argument, Mark.

Isn't it just natural to be more careful and spend more time when you get a high-grade coin than another in the bulk grades?  Maybe you are naturally more careful or maybe you just haven't seen a coin like that too often...but the end result might be you spend a few more seconds on it and discern more closely.

It just seems common-sense to me that if I were a grader and was looking at a bunch of 1924 Saints that pretty much graded MS63-MS65... and then all of a sudden I see a pristine one that looks like it's MS67 at worst, and maybe MS68....I'm gonna look at it closer.   But maybe that's just me.

Edited October 21, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[MarkFeld]

11 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

No argument, Mark.

Isn't it just natural to be me careful and spend more time when you get a high-grade coin than another in the bulk grades?  Maybe you are naturally more careful or maybe you just haven't seen a coin like that too often...but the end result might be you spend a few more seconds on it and discern more closely.

It just seems common-sense to me that if I were a grader and was looking at a bunch of 1924 Saints that pretty much graded MS63-MS65... and then all of a sudden I see a pristine one that looks like it's MS67 at worst, and maybe MS68....I'm gonna look at it closer.   But maybe that's just me.

That’s perfectly understandable and sounds reasonable. As long as you don’t devote sub-par attention to the ordinary coins.