Why do I struggle to accept "Net Grading" ????????
I understand the concept of net grading but to me the numerical grade has to do with the details and descriptive comments would deal with any takeaways. Yes it's a lot easier to relegate a sentence to a number downgrade, but this is very subjective, as is all aspects of grading. Of course a net grade makes it easier for everyone to be on the same page as a pricing guide (one does come to mind) but it still comes back to subjectivity. Why then don't we take away all descriptive monikers and increase the detail grade when the appearance is above average, say choice. No scratches in the field, a VF goes to EF, nice. If we have segregated Choice, Average and Scudzy as additional descriptions, why can't we do so for porosity, granularity, scratches, dents etc.
It's OK to stone me but make sure you use coppers.
Nice to see you are seeking counseling.
I humbly concur with your thoughts, Ken, and prefer your approach. Yet, I've long viewed net grading as a "means to an end" with the end being the transfer of ownership at an agreed upon price. I tend to go with the flow if the price seems reasonable to me. If the other guy, seller/buyer, wants to verbally assess all the variables, I'm okay with that insofar as I can justify the final number in my mind's eye. That said, I'm always ready for a fight ... somebody call the coppers!
And I swear that sooner or later - I shall learn to copy all of my well thought out 7 paragraphs of response to this before hitting the "post quick reply" button and having it disappear into the etherz and be eternally lost...
I agree with both of you here. I tend to classify things into choice, average, and scudzy based in large part on the net deduction so they really have equivalence in my mind. The 'means to an end' comment really hits home with me as I view the net grade as a starting point to negotiate price. On the other hand, and keep in mind I just got 40 coins back from Bob, there really is valuable information being conveyed when done by people who know what they are doing. I can look at a late date with 40/35 and one that is 40/30 and see clearly the increase in nicks, or the slight stain that seperates the grades.
Originally Posted by Chautauquan
This business of net grading as done in EAC is counterintuitive to most collectors, and, in my humble opinion, keeps people from joining EAC and discovering the two most interesting US coin series - half cents and large cents. Even Dr. Sheldon thought what we do was wrong. He recommended calling the coin by its sharpness grade and then describing the defects. I believe that is how they do it in JRCS.
Seriously, if a coin has VF details but enough damage so as to be worth only "Good money", what is the point in calling it a Scudzy VG? Why not just say, "VF sharpness; value of GOOD because of heavy porosity" and be done with it? No need for three or more grading scales for each variety.
One other comment: coin wear is continuous, but grades are discontinuous categories, so a grade can never fully describe a coin's condition or value.
I totally agree with Bill - "VF sharpness; value of GOOD because of heavy porosity" makes sense to me. In this case, "net grade" of GOOD would be basically market grading if I'm not mistaken, e.g., VF net GOOD = $30, nice, no-problem GOOD also = $30.
Copper Quotes (CQR) makes things interesting though. There are three different categories per grade: Ch/Avg+, Avg, Scudzy. Now, in CQR, Avg GOOD and Scudzy VG could both be $30. So now, in this example, no-problem GOOD, VF sharpness, value of GOOD, or VF net VG Scudzy all equal $30. So... is the "net grade" GOOD or VG? The CQR definition would be net VG, with the Scudzy qualifier; Bill's market grade would be net (value of) GOOD.
Now, to make things even more interesting, how is Condition Census defined? Which net grade are we talking about here? If the CC is definied based on the qualified grading or CQR (e.g., VG scudzy), which I think it is, you can get into a situation where a more "desirable" coin (e.g., higher value) can have a lower net grade than a less desirable one. I think I'm with Bill with this one, correct me if I'm wrong: given two examples of the same variety, the more desirable coin to own SHOULD have a higher net (value of) grade. But does it work this way? I have a choice VF S-215 (CC#7 according to Noyes, CC#11 I think according to Bland.) Not that I'm that big into CCs, but just using this as an example. I'd rather own this example than examples higher in the CC that have issues. Think about it further; what does "finest known" actually mean? What criteria is being used? Desirability alone, or a numerical value technically arrived at, with an addition condition qualifier?
Nobody ever said this stuff was easy. I've been collecting large cents since 1997 and still haven't figured this stuff out yet!
A quick glance show the s244 is price as you described Tom, the scudzy f15 is 175 while the average f12 is 650. But doing a condition census is no easier when you compare a sharpness 30 scudzy to an 12 average, which one is higher? And doing it by 'highest value' does not get you far either as you do not know the value until it's sold, so without some qualitative metric I won't know how to rank my scudzy 30 against your average 12. The current method is not perfect, and grading is always heated, but doing a CC requires some qualitative way to compare vastly different coins with vastly different surface conditions.
And for you early date guys, at least the CC has condition included, the late dates just list net grade
Tom, you have very eloquently stated the inherent fallacy of ANY condition census. I would only add that placement in a CC is nothing more than the opinion or one or two guys at one particular point in time, and it is highly unlikely that they have examined all of the alleged CC coins and those near to the CC side-by-side. For me, the only value of a CC is to tell me what grades I am likely to be able to find. If the "top 10" coins of a variety are VF30 and better, it is very unlikely that I am going to be able to buy an AU at any price any time soon. On the other hand, if there are 100 UNCs, I can probably get one, though it may be pricey.
That said, my humble opinion is that the choice between greater sharpness and fewer problems at the same net grade/value is a matter of personal taste. Many - probably most - would agree with you that nicer surfaces trump greater sharpness (generally, I agree with this as well), but it all really comes down to what an individual collector likes.