Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Who devised EAC Net Coin Grading?
As a student of coin grading and author/developer of the obsolete "true" technical grading system to identify a coin's actual condition (closely cloned now as "details" grading) rather than value them, I have been asking this question for years with no answer. I should think whomever came up with EAC Net Grading would be very proud to take the credit. Perhaps he/she is dead and no copper collectors know. I have found no mention at all of net grading in Penny Whimsy. This should be a very easy question to answer. Why the mystery?
mod edit: added tags 2/7/22 15:42
mod edit: added tags 2/7/22 15:42
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
is essentially an agreement among more advanced or long term copper collectors.
It is not precise & what one collector considers more severe than another
advanced collector will still vary but not by much - perhaps 5 points. So, like slab
grading, net grading is still subjective and frankly that makes the hobby more interesting & challenging...and enables transactions more readily. What’s 1 person’s beauty is another person’s “eh”.
schedule but did address qualifiers to condition. One current specialist who uses EAC net grading very proficiently is Mark Borckardt , longtime cataloguer for first Bowers various firms & now Heritage. About as skilled as anyone living, he mentions EAC net grade at the
conclusion of any half or large cent his firm offers ar auction. And his net grading
often is slightly liberal as he has to consider both the consignor & Heritage’s interest. It is often that Mark B. EAC net grades a copper as much as 20-25 points below the slab grade. Sad to say, the slabbing companies just do not yet know how to net grade an early copper w faults or even an Unc copper with “ rubbing”.
For instance, a 1793 S-2 Chain cent ex - Herman Halpern & known / sold as an AU
for many decades ( I examined it in hand raw a few yrs ago) was finally slabbed as a MS-64 and sold for $1.2M when it sold as an AU raw only 3 yrs ago for $500K.
Subsequent co-conspirators met in the parking garage of the Watergate Complex, but everyone wore masks excluding Diogenes, who wore a blindfold.
SOOL
I would think Denis Loring may have some insight for you.
A while back, I wrote a column about the "folly" of technical grading and Denis challenged it. So I bought and read the EAC Grading Guide (since lost - but I just located another copy this week that I'll have soon) and made notes for our eventual debate. The EAC Grading Guide says everything in print that makes my case. What it does not say is WHO DEVISED NET GRADING FOR EARLY COPPER COINS.
Furthermore, I have nothing against a group of collectors who have been net grading copper for decades. It is their part of the hobby/business. They can grade coins any way they wish. It can also be demonstrated that TPGS use this practice to a certain extent for coins that are not bad enough to detail grade. Unfortunately, the copper guys believe the TPGS cannot grade copper when it is the copper guys who left the mainstream grading system.
Color me stupid but I believe a grading system should be SIMPLE, easy to use/teach, and PRECISE. It does not change over time or market conditions. That's what we had for internal records at ANACS and then at the second authentication service and first grading service the INS Authentication Bureau in DC.
I cannot change anything; yet I'll debate the folly of calling an XF Large cent either VF or AU for any reason.
Grade the coin for what it is - XF, porous with rim dings. Then Price it as a VG! That way, any non-collector, new collector, or old dinosaur collector will be able to understand both its grade and price - SIMPLE. Until then, many copper coins in auction will continue to be listed with two different grades arrived at by professional numismatists. LOL.
Making a "new" (old) market newer (older).
Maybe the description of the Post should be labeled "Back To Basics".
I found some interesting video at the Newman Portal! I have not had time to watch the entire piece (I found it this morning around 1 AM). Jack Robinson (Copper Quotes) used the word "net" where I stopped the video to go to bed.
Therefore, net grading was in use back then (1980's) but I already knew that. My guess is he was involved with establishing that system.
I wish NGC and PCGS would do that just so I would know.
Net grading is required for pricing and building condition census lists. The opinions are not carved in stone among experts / specialists. It's not like slabbing Morgan Dollars which can be somewhat cut and dried.
This 1797 large cent is a condition census piece for a common variety, S-139. It has red corrosion on the reverse, and for that reason it came back in a body bag in I submitted it for grading in the early 2000s. I sold it in an EAC auction and got a good price for it raw. Later I saw it graded in a PCGS holder.
Anyway, remember, that I wrote that you guys can use any grading system you wish.
Bill Jones wrote: "Net grading is especially necessary for early copper coins because the metal is so reactive. [silver is not as reactive but the color of its oxidation also influences its grade] Many pieces have corrosion spots and odd color. [Ditto silver] If you have to have every piece with perfect brown [or blast white?] color, you going to reject just about everything. This is even more true if you become a die variety collector. Some varieties only exist with problems."
Net grading is required for pricing and building condition census lists. [I thought commercial grading did the same thing.] The opinions are not carved in stone among experts / specialists. [That's for sure! This is pointed out in the EAC guide that states net grading can be difficult with very subjective results - just as market grading I suppose.] It's not like slabbing Morgan Dollars which can be somewhat cut and dried. [I'm in 100% agreement with this as commercial grading seems to have less variables. That's why any precise, archival system needed to remove as many subjective variables as possible; the quality of a coin's strike being one of them].
This 1797 large cent is a condition census piece for a common variety, S-139. It has red corrosion on the reverse, and for that reason it came back in a body bag in I submitted it for grading in the early 2000s. I sold it in an EAC auction and got a good price for it raw. Later I saw it graded in a PCGS holder.
Unfortunately what's missing from your reply is your grade, the EAC grade, the auction grade, and the PCGS grade. Inquiring minds wish to know. Thanks again Bill for butting heads. I really enjoy talking about how each of us grades coins. Hope to see you in Lakeland this weekend.
PS Jack Robinson mentioned that he would bring some Large cents to a meeting and let EAC members grade them. His results were similar to mine at the Roundtable in NYC. For the life of me I do not understand how a group of collectors/dealers, professionals can have such large differences of opinion. There must be a lack of numismatic education in this country.
"Gosh, folks, you're all so confused that I'm confused."
Noooo. We've evolved and you're stuck.
To readers not knowing Insider3, he has a very long and well-deserved reputation for evoking distraction on multiple numismatic message boards.
@CAC_Team ... He called himself STUPID. Would you like me to put quotes and a footnote on it?
"....If Loring won't give you a straight answer, ask Skip Fazzari. He's been around longer than most. He probably knows the people without knowing their names are the answer....".
Priceless. Just priceless.