Is it time to add a minus to the grading system?

kccoinguy

One of the common questions about the new grading service has been around how "C" coins will be handled. For example, coins that are below average for the grade, overly processed, or have old cleanings.  I don't know that deducting a whole point is the right answer in all cases.  We have the plus for coins that are close to the next grade.  Why not have a minus for these "C" coins? 

SharpStrike

I guess I would be in favor, although if they're using a plus system for the A and B coins then that kind of implies that everything else is a minus for that grade level. Also, If you do drop a C coin down a level then does that automatically mean it's an A or B (or +) at the lower level?

I've always thought that A meant top quarter, B meant next quarter, and C meant bottom half, for CAC, but I could be mistaken.

As for PCGS, they say on their web site that + means top 30% for the grade. Not sure about NGC.

https://www.pcgs.com/grades
Reference to plus at top 30% near the bottom.

LarryC

CAC should consider identifying all coins for what they are by having the letter included as part of the grade such as MS-63A; MS-63B and MS-63C. Even the Genuine coins could be graded MS-63D with adjectives describing the problem instead of “Genuine.” 

Pyrite

Yes yes...more grades....yay.

SharpStrike

"CAC should consider identifying all coins for what they are by having the letter included as part of the grade such as MS-63A; MS-63B and MS-63C. Even the Genuine coins could be graded MS-63D with adjectives describing the problem instead of “Genuine.”"

I think this sounds like a good solution if they already identify coins as A, B, or C anyway. It does create more grade "levels", but at least it provides more information. As long as it's being done by highly skilled graders, more info seems like a good thing to me.

MarkFeld

SharpStrike said:

"CAC should consider identifying all coins for what they are by having the letter included as part of the grade such as MS-63A; MS-63B and MS-63C. Even the Genuine coins could be graded MS-63D with adjectives describing the problem instead of “Genuine.”"

I think this sounds like a good solution if they already identify coins as A, B, or C anyway. It does create more grade "levels", but at least it provides more information. As long as it's being done by highly skilled graders, more info seems like a good thing to me.

As good as CAC is, grades are still (expert) opinions, not incontrovertible information.That’s especially so if/when each grade is divided into three or more sub-grades, such as A, B and C and/or pluses or minuses are used.

SharpStrike

"As good as CAC is, grades are still (expert) opinions, not incontrovertible information.That’s especially so if/when each grade is divided into three or more sub-grades, such as A, B and C and/or pluses or minuses are used."

I must admit that, given the choice, I think I would prefer more skilled opinion sources on the holder rather than more grade granularity since that reduces the probability that a coin is mis-graded. However, since the new CAC holders will only have one opinion source on them, I would definitely prefer seeing their entire opinion, rather than just part of it, with the understanding that it is just an imperfect, albeit expert, opinion. I think something like a Flying Eagle or Indian cent with both a CAC sticker and Eagle Eye sticker is the ultimate security since it represents three different expert opinions of the same coin.

john

To me, it would be a Grading Opinion Logic Bust. A serious market disruptive "added" (or "deductive", if you prefer) opinion without clarification or guideline.

braddick

A minus sign or even an exclamation point (followed often by a question mark) would be appropriate for some of the coins I collect.

Catbert

Talk about a market killer to own a coin labelled a minus. I'm not in favor.

Seth_WitterCoin

Too much. Grading needs to be simplified, not expanded.

Seatedman

"However, since the new CAC holders will only have one opinion source on them"
Incorrect, more than one grader looks at each coin.

For seated and bust coins the knowledge, experience, and grading ability of the graders is much more important to me than the number of graders that have viewed the coins. This is where CAC shines.

I agree with Seth "Grading needs to be simplified, not expanded."

SharpStrike

"Incorrect, more than one grader looks at each coin."

I should have said grading service, not opinion source, since each grading service has multiple graders look at each coin. Still, I would rather have multiple grading service results on the holder since that reduces the probability of a mis-graded coin. I think that has been one of the primary benefits of stickering services like CAC and Eagle Eye, in addition to the respect that people have for the skill of their graders.

CACfan

LarryC said:

CAC should consider identifying all coins for what they are by having the letter included as part of the grade such as MS-63A; MS-63B and MS-63C. Even the Genuine coins could be graded MS-63D with adjectives describing the problem instead of “Genuine.” 

I suggested doing that when this site first opened but was called foolish by TPG graders.

Insider3

CACfan said:

LarryC said:

CAC should consider identifying all coins for what they are by having the letter included as part of the grade such as MS-63A; MS-63B and MS-63C. Even the Genuine coins could be graded MS-63D with adjectives describing the problem instead of “Genuine.” 

I suggested doing that when this site first opened but was called foolish by TPG graders.

Sounds like a simple, easy to understand solution.