A very basic error by NGC

[Rob]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

I just don't understand how TPGs interpret the Sheldon scale sometimes. The crown is extremely attractive indeed. However, MS 60 is supposed to have bad eye appeal, lots of contact marks etc. which is clearly not the case here.

It appears that coins with a trace of wear but has good eye appeal can be given low MS grades by TPGs in contrary to the definitions of the Sheldon scale.

 

 

 

Important name on the ticket seems to add a point, and also a large collection consigned for auction.

Grades are inconsistent because you are using the same tool whether it's a TPG or not, i.e. a fallible human. If you want automated grades, use a robot.

[VickySilver]

I sometimes think that as well, not to mention the unknown to the observer consignor. These are supposed to be blind gradings but never altogether sure of that bit. The crown in question IMO does not have real wear but suffers from enough rub that I would have expected it to be "body bagged", especially on the reverse. In any case that is the net grading that is likely occurring . 

[Nutsaboutcoins]

On 3/25/2016 at 2:06 AM, Rob said:

If you want automated grades, use a robot.

Interesting thought Rob, with the imaging software available these days it should be possible to automate grading, that is if it could differentiate scratches, dings etc from the design. Could be a nice little engineering project for someone. Would slash the cost of Third Party Grading, but I doubt it would stop the arguments.  

Ian..

[PWA 1967]

Thats the main issue Ian.

Sometimes really hard to tell from an image regardless of how good the picture.

[brg5658]

6 hours ago, Nutsaboutcoins said:

Interesting thought Rob, with the imaging software available these days it should be possible to automate grading, that is if it could differentiate scratches, dings etc from the design. Could be a nice little engineering project for someone. Would slash the cost of Third Party Grading, but I doubt it would stop the arguments.  

Ian..

It was attempted in the 80s, then again in the 90s, and probably a half dozen times again since.

Computer grading of coins can't easily pick up things like luster, eye appeal, and the difference between "as minted" issues with strike versus post strike circulation.  It sounds good in theory (and would certainly be consistent assuming you never change you algorithm) but has thus far proven untenable as a business idea.

[Peter]

TPG's need to up their game.

They 1st need to ID the type ignoring grade and then pass on to graders who GRADE not knowing provenance/rarity bias.(as far as possible). Then get the MD's to put their cocks on the block.

[1949threepence]

19 hours ago, Peter said:

TPG's need to up their game.

They 1st need to ID the type ignoring grade and then pass on to graders who GRADE not knowing provenance/rarity bias.(as far as possible). Then get the MD's to put their cocks on the block.

They do, but to be honest, if I was sending a coin off for slabbing, I'd enclose a detailed description of precisely what it was, and ask them not to slab it if they disagreed with my findings. Surely it's a bit of a no brainer leaving it to chance?

Or am I being hypercritical?