Menger

Our left-side brains are seduced by quantitative scales (such as Sheldon - the American system), as if they somehow represent greater certainty than qualitative grades (such as extra fine etc of the British system). This is a pure mirage, but a good one and it is what the PCGS and NGC make money from. A fine business model! In reality, all grading is qualitative - and all qualitative judgments are (to a degree) subjective and error prone. In my view, TPG provides a useful rule of thumb to purchase at a distance; no better nor worse than qualitative grading provided by a reputable auction house. Neither is a substitute for the expanded qualitative descriptions and exchange of observations as per the thread above. None of this is a substitute for the subjective feel of a coin in hand - preferably broken out of it’s slab with a hammer and victory dance.

Yes quite possible. Or perhaps you were under-thinking it?

Dunno. How about the kid who turns up quite ballsy and offers to let play with his decent ball; several on the team refuse to play (not allowed to be ballsy nor show off decent ball - certainly don’t suggest potential improvements to the game); others keep their decent balls and ideas hidden away (possibly for fear of the same treatment).

Did the other kids bring their planes to the clubhouse, or keep them locked up safely at home? If they kept them at home, when could we expect to see them next? Did they freely post generous photos of their collections? Did they dare make up their own model numbers to fill gaps or did they dutifully follow established orthodoxy and ignore the gaps? Did they vape?

Do you mean “Vive la difference!”? I agree. I think the forum can only benefit from the odd colourful character. We have had a few now. Diversity is our strength!

I think this is out of sequence: I only liked him personally after he said that. 🥰 Beforehand, I was seeking to objectively explore the epistemology of dynamic systems of distributed knowledge and the potential contribution he makes to such a system. Also the concept of trade offs - as Thomas Aquinas put it - every (coin) acquisition is a renunciation. Perhaps you need to introduce an additional character to your fable - that of the annoying and snooty school swat. 🤣

One way is we encourage people to tinker around the edges by posting their own observations / assigned numbers for examples in their own collections on their own websites. What works sticks and what does not is discarded - by the collecting community as a whole. Again, this is how all bottom up systems work - from language to common law to customs to “best practice”. In parallel there can also be attempts at top down / expert authority - to the extent it is useful it will be respected (Gouby, Freeman, Satin …) and to the extent it is not it will be ignored.

That is how many bottom up systems work (common law, language, customs) so it may help fill the gap. What works sticks and what does not falls by the wayside …

Then how can the system hope to improve?

Surely we have a right attribute whatever rarity or symbol we want to our own collection and on our own websites and wot not. Then it is up to anyone else to attribute such credibility to our determinations as they choose. Rarity seems such a subjective thing - a finger in the air based on personal experience much of the time. In my area of thruppences several the ESC rarity ratings seem a bit wonky - so I ignore them.

I bet he has a peep at it once in a while … who could resist? Anyhows - I see it as a great service that he shares the photos, even if he hopes not to sell. With the advances in technology we are seeing, I think the more we all share quality images of private collections the better. Let’s go!! 👍👍

Isn’t that the same (to a degree) for all markets though - from coins to houses to art to (dare I say) women. So perhaps more important than market domination is to ensure that we share pictures on the internet of what we have got (within reason) and for everyone else to enjoy. 😊

Presumptuous in that you cannot know if he traded his pension pot to obtain it. Or perhaps he did not have the resources initially, but worked to obtain them precisely to be able to afford the collection. Or perhaps you make a good guess - but even then I still think a full stop would be better than a comma. The comma implies an explanatory link between the two subclauses that may overreach: there are plenty of people with resources who lack such a collection.

I am intrigued: is this the best circulation penny collection in the world? Does anyone know of a better collection? (I like the concept. I aspire to have the best collection of silver threepences, Britannia groats and other tiny British (empire) silver one day … 🇬🇧)

Does that matter for private coin collections in this age of internet auctions? My humble collection resides with me overseas - but I don’t see the practical difference between that and it being in a bank vault (or under a bed) in the UK. In either case, private collections can be shared on the internet - or squirreled away. What we do benefit from is a liquid market that links supply and demand across the globe. 🇬🇧