Cleaning up the coin market

[Accumulator 52]

To kick this off as a seperate subject, here are a few thoughts from me.

There seem to be a number of different issues that threaten the reputation of the coin market.

My order, from the least significant to the worst offence, would be:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies)

A lot of discussion has taken place about item 1. (dipping and re-selling coins etc.) but I personally believe it is ultimately up to any buyer to make their own judgement of a coin’s condition. Whilst bad practice, I don’t generally regard this as fraudulent and therefore not something we should directly tackle as a priority, beyond the general berating of offenders that already happens.

Item 2. only arises through genuine mistakes. If the mistake is being made my a dealer or a private seller then I think that individual should be notified in writing and expected to remove the item from sale or re-list it with the appropriate notification. If the mistake is made by a TPG then they should be notified in writing, asked to remedy their error (note against the relevant UIN on their website etc.), investigate the lapse internally and ensure, as far as possible, that the same error could not occur again.

Items 3. And 4. are possibly criminal offences and are unlikely to be perpetrated by any dealer or auction house operating in the UK. The main outlet for such coins is almost certainly eBay. At the very least we should seek to have eBay de-list and ban offending sellers. Easy to say, I know!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts to kick off the discussion.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Accumulator

[copper123 1,536]

I think this was done years ago and the BNTA was formed

Unfortunately enough, you don't have to be a member to sell a few coins on ebay or be a dealer of any repute

[Peckris 579]

To kick this off as a seperate subject, here are a few thoughts from me.

There seem to be a number of different issues that threaten the reputation of the coin market.

My order, from the least significant to the worst offence, would be:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies)

A lot of discussion has taken place about item 1. (dipping and re-selling coins etc.) but I personally believe it is ultimately up to any buyer to make their own judgement of a coin’s condition. Whilst bad practice, I don’t generally regard this as fraudulent and therefore not something we should directly tackle as a priority, beyond the general berating of offenders that already happens.

Item 2. only arises through genuine mistakes. If the mistake is being made my a dealer or a private seller then I think that individual should be notified in writing and expected to remove the item from sale or re-list it with the appropriate notification. If the mistake is made by a TPG then they should be notified in writing, asked to remedy their error (note against the relevant UIN on their website etc.), investigate the lapse internally and ensure, as far as possible, that the same error could not occur again.

Items 3. And 4. are possibly criminal offences and are unlikely to be perpetrated by any dealer or auction house operating in the UK. The main outlet for such coins is almost certainly eBay. At the very least we should seek to have eBay de-list and ban offending sellers. Easy to say, I know!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts to kick off the discussion.

I think 2. is a problem area, the way you've presented it. In terms of the consequences (i.e. whether mistake or not) then it ranks only below #4, in other words it could have a catastrophic effect for a buyer. However, in terms of actual intent, you'd have to place it at #1 as it is the only genuine mistake among them. So I'd have to ask - are you listing those in order of criminal intent, or are you listing them in order of their consequences on a buyer?

[Accumulator 52]

I think this was done years ago and the BNTA was formed

Unfortunately enough, you don't have to be a member to sell a few coins on ebay or be a dealer of any repute

"..this was done years ago"? Clearly not, or we wouldn't be discussing all the problems now. Perhaps the BNTA should be protecting and enhancing the reputation of their members by being more pro-active in tackling some of the above listed abuses?

[Accumulator 52]

To kick this off as a seperate subject, here are a few thoughts from me.

There seem to be a number of different issues that threaten the reputation of the coin market.

My order, from the least significant to the worst offence, would be:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies)

A lot of discussion has taken place about item 1. (dipping and re-selling coins etc.) but I personally believe it is ultimately up to any buyer to make their own judgement of a coin’s condition. Whilst bad practice, I don’t generally regard this as fraudulent and therefore not something we should directly tackle as a priority, beyond the general berating of offenders that already happens.

Item 2. only arises through genuine mistakes. If the mistake is being made my a dealer or a private seller then I think that individual should be notified in writing and expected to remove the item from sale or re-list it with the appropriate notification. If the mistake is made by a TPG then they should be notified in writing, asked to remedy their error (note against the relevant UIN on their website etc.), investigate the lapse internally and ensure, as far as possible, that the same error could not occur again.

Items 3. And 4. are possibly criminal offences and are unlikely to be perpetrated by any dealer or auction house operating in the UK. The main outlet for such coins is almost certainly eBay. At the very least we should seek to have eBay de-list and ban offending sellers. Easy to say, I know!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts to kick off the discussion.

I think 2. is a problem area, the way you've presented it. In terms of the consequences (i.e. whether mistake or not) then it ranks only below #4, in other words it could have a catastrophic effect for a buyer. However, in terms of actual intent, you'd have to place it at #1 as it is the only genuine mistake among them. So I'd have to ask - are you listing those in order of criminal intent, or are you listing them in order of their consequences on a buyer?

My aim was to bring the conversation out of another thread and kick it off in its own right by just giving my initial thoughts. I take your point about the consequences being the same, whether an error is intentional or unintentional. However, I think we have to accept there will always be genuine mistakes made by amateurs (in what, after all, is only a hobby) and these cannot generally be legislated against. It will always be a case of caveat emptor for the buyer and this is probably right. My main focus is on the professional faker or those offering a professional grading service, who very definitely should know better. In my opinion, the fakers should be banned and the TPGs should be accountable for their errors in the same way that every other professional is. I presume they must have professional indemnity insurance cover? If I bought a slabbed coin that later proved fake or misattributed (and the seller refused a refund) I might well consider making a claim against the TPG, despite any disclaimers they may try to hide behind. If organisations like eBay and Hertiage are going to demand slabbed coins then the TPGs will have to stand behind their product. Just an opinion!

[Rob 3,185]

To kick this off as a seperate subject, here are a few thoughts from me.

There seem to be a number of different issues that threaten the reputation of the coin market.

My order, from the least significant to the worst offence, would be:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies)

A lot of discussion has taken place about item 1. (dipping and re-selling coins etc.) but I personally believe it is ultimately up to any buyer to make their own judgement of a coin’s condition. Whilst bad practice, I don’t generally regard this as fraudulent and therefore not something we should directly tackle as a priority, beyond the general berating of offenders that already happens.

Item 2. only arises through genuine mistakes. If the mistake is being made my a dealer or a private seller then I think that individual should be notified in writing and expected to remove the item from sale or re-list it with the appropriate notification. If the mistake is made by a TPG then they should be notified in writing, asked to remedy their error (note against the relevant UIN on their website etc.), investigate the lapse internally and ensure, as far as possible, that the same error could not occur again.

Items 3. And 4. are possibly criminal offences and are unlikely to be perpetrated by any dealer or auction house operating in the UK. The main outlet for such coins is almost certainly eBay. At the very least we should seek to have eBay de-list and ban offending sellers. Easy to say, I know!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts to kick off the discussion.

I think 2. is a problem area, the way you've presented it. In terms of the consequences (i.e. whether mistake or not) then it ranks only below #4, in other words it could have a catastrophic effect for a buyer. However, in terms of actual intent, you'd have to place it at #1 as it is the only genuine mistake among them. So I'd have to ask - are you listing those in order of criminal intent, or are you listing them in order of their consequences on a buyer?

#1 grading is a matter of opinion and is unlikely to ever be any different. Mint state is an absolute if qualified at a certain magnification as is flat with no detail. Everything in between is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people grade stricter than others, but with a degree of leeway, many grading attempts could be deemed accetable. It is as Peck says, up to the buyer to make their own judgment. As long as individuals maintain a consistent standard of grading, then there is less of a black and white case for claiming a coin is overgraded. Hands cannot be held all the time, so somewhere along the line people need to be responsible for their own actions given nobody is compelled to buy.

#2 & 3 I agree with Peck. If attempting to sell a coin as genuine that you know is a fake, then that is fraud. However, mistakes have been and will be made. The Circular had a copy groat in it a while back which was withdrawn when pointed out. Yesterday's sale had a copy shilling which Richard noticed. It would be irrational to believe these were attempts to defraud anyone, so the situation for most dealers is that they hope they haven't sold/will not sell a copy by mistake. 'there but for the grace of God go I' is probably the feeling of most dealers unless they make a conscious decision to abandon a particular field to avoid any such event occurring. The case of the slabbed copy in the recent thread is unlikely to have been deliberate case to deceive on the part of NGC, rather a case of being out of their depth and trying to make a buck in a series with which they are not familiar. The person submitting it may also not have realised if sold a coin as genuine, however, submitting multiple copies for slabbing would suggest the person is digging a hole for themselves - but how would you prove it?

#4 would be a criminal offence in this country, but I don't believe it is in China. Unless you were to have world-wide control over all industrial production the problem cannot be avoided. The problem therefore is one of fraud committed by people who sell coins knowing they are fakes. You cannot have a totally regulated market when the masses have the ability to set up their own businesses and effectively produce what they want. A thousand years ago when the production of money in this country was delegated to a few individuals at specific locations, you still had nefarious activities taking place whereby the coinage was copied illegally. If it isn't illegal, you can't stop it. The best you can hope for is to have the copies identified (with their own privy marks for identification) and to clamp down hard on individuals who sell copies that aren't clearly so - if necessary by Act of Parliament. This would force ebay's hand in the UK, but wouldn't and couldn't apply worldwide. The danger of regulating in this way would be that it would potentially criminalise a lot of innocent people, whilst at the same time legitimising slabbed fake items because ebay have already given them unquestionable status in the US.

It might seem a bit impotent, but I don't think there is much you can do apart from covering your own backside, both as buyer and seller.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Rob

[numismatist 2]

I know very little about the present day BNTA and know few of its members, but

many listed as BNTA Members have shocking grading standards . I was supposed to

be a founder member of the BNTA after being encouraged by Spinks and Seabys but

at the time myself and several others refused to carry on because of the influx

of what we perceived to be the criminal fringe of dealers, who were setting

themselves up to infiltrate it and take over the running of it. At the time we

all thought it was just a front to give respectability to their shady dealings.

Many of those will be long gone now, but I wonder if much has changed since

then ??

[argentumandcoins 70]

I know very little about the present day BNTA and know few of its members, but

many listed as BNTA Members have shocking grading standards . I was supposed to

be a founder member of the BNTA after being encouraged by Spinks and Seabys but

at the time myself and several others refused to carry on because of the influx

of what we perceived to be the criminal fringe of dealers, who were setting

themselves up to infiltrate it and take over the running of it. At the time we

all thought it was just a front to give respectability to their shady dealings.

Many of those will be long gone now, but I wonder if much has changed since

then ??

Unfortunately the thing most needed to be a BNTA member is most lacking, an entrance exam!

I have seen quite a few BNTA members that know nothing about coins or coin grading but are members purely because they are in the old boys club.

[Gary D 76]

I know very little about the present day BNTA and know few of its members, but

many listed as BNTA Members have shocking grading standards . I was supposed to

be a founder member of the BNTA after being encouraged by Spinks and Seabys but

at the time myself and several others refused to carry on because of the influx

of what we perceived to be the criminal fringe of dealers, who were setting

themselves up to infiltrate it and take over the running of it. At the time we

all thought it was just a front to give respectability to their shady dealings.

Many of those will be long gone now, but I wonder if much has changed since

then ??

Unfortunately the thing most needed to be a BNTA member is most lacking, an entrance exam!

I have seen quite a few BNTA members that know nothing about coins or coin grading but are members purely because they are in the old boys club.

I suspect the BNTA are no different to any other trade organization who's interests rarely go beyond collecting their yearly subs.

[pies 33]

I've just come to accept its buyer beware in many cases unless using a known dealer

[copper123 1,536]

Even being a "known" dealer does not guarantee that a coin is genuine many northumberland shilling fakes have appeared in dealers trays and major London auction houses as well.

To be fair any BNTA member would at least give you your cash back with no quibble if you had any doubts after buying from them

[numidan 0]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

[copper123 1,536]

In a lot of ways ebay laughs on this forum really sums up the general public's lack of knowledge about numismatics - well we all go on it and have a laugh at the polished buttons described as near mint , and the metal detector finds of blank corroded pennies .

Things ain't gonna change overnight guys and in the end the only person in this numismatic jungle who is really to blame for buying rubbish is the buyer , no matter how wise or foolish this person might be.

In the end just make sure it ain't you that's buying the unsellable rubbish

[Coinery 1,213]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

That looks great, Numidan! The only thing that sprung to mind was how strike weakness could be factored into the equation? Superb idea though, which for the main part could work!

At the end of the day a grade's a grade! Bag marks, edge knocks, etc, only affect appeal, and consequently value! Would be a very good start to get the grade right!

[azda 981]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

That looks great, Numidan! The only thing that sprung to mind was how strike weakness could be factored into the equation? Superb idea though, which for the main part could work!

At the end of the day a grade's a grade! Bag marks, edge knocks, etc, only affect appeal, and consequently value! Would be a very good start to get the grade right!

I'm still trying to work out what the diagrams are of I'm assuming of something that someone could use in grading terms. -5 being good and -50 poor etc. I thought Derek Riley brought out a book for such requirements? Grading is always going to be subjective, no matter how we all think, we've seen it so MANNNNNNY times on this forum where we as experienced collectors do not agree, so we should basically pass that subject by and work on the rest.

[numidan 0]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

That looks great, Numidan! The only thing that sprung to mind was how strike weakness could be factored into the equation? Superb idea though, which for the main part could work!

At the end of the day a grade's a grade! Bag marks, edge knocks, etc, only affect appeal, and consequently value! Would be a very good start to get the grade right!

I'm still trying to work out what the diagrams are of I'm assuming of something that someone could use in grading terms. -5 being good and -50 poor etc. I thought Derek Riley brought out a book for such requirements? Grading is always going to be subjective, no matter how we all think, we've seen it so MANNNNNNY times on this forum where we as experienced collectors do not agree, so we should basically pass that subject by and work on the rest.

The diagram (section of king George V's crown on Canadian coins) was presented to prove a point, there maybe other ways to grading. It was not there to teach someone how it works, so do not assume, it is a bit more complex than that. If your method works, good for you, I respect that, but it did not work for me and I am guessing, it is not working for many others since forums are full of buyers complaining about the grade of their new purchases.

How many of you, picked up a coin in your collection that you had previously graded, and wondered why you attributed that grade and changed it? That is objectivity at its best. Believe me, next time you will take the same coin, you will change its grade ... again. I was fed up always second guessing the grade.

After searching the internet for Mr. Riley's book and I found an excerpt of it. It looks like a great reference book but it uses the same old methodology. People have to guess what grade their coins are, based on pictures. But the things I do liked about this book, pictures are clear and the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy. Thank you, Azda.

I do agree with you that we should basically pass that subject, I am satisfied with my grading skills and do not need to prove anything to anyone.

[Accumulator 52]

To kick this off as a seperate subject, here are a few thoughts from me.

There seem to be a number of different issues that threaten the reputation of the coin market.

My order, from the least significant to the worst offence, would be:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies)

A lot of discussion has taken place about item 1. (dipping and re-selling coins etc.) but I personally believe it is ultimately up to any buyer to make their own judgement of a coin’s condition. Whilst bad practice, I don’t generally regard this as fraudulent and therefore not something we should directly tackle as a priority, beyond the general berating of offenders that already happens.

Item 2. only arises through genuine mistakes. If the mistake is being made my a dealer or a private seller then I think that individual should be notified in writing and expected to remove the item from sale or re-list it with the appropriate notification. If the mistake is made by a TPG then they should be notified in writing, asked to remedy their error (note against the relevant UIN on their website etc.), investigate the lapse internally and ensure, as far as possible, that the same error could not occur again.

Items 3. And 4. are possibly criminal offences and are unlikely to be perpetrated by any dealer or auction house operating in the UK. The main outlet for such coins is almost certainly eBay. At the very least we should seek to have eBay de-list and ban offending sellers. Easy to say, I know!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts to kick off the discussion.

I think 2. is a problem area, the way you've presented it. In terms of the consequences (i.e. whether mistake or not) then it ranks only below #4, in other words it could have a catastrophic effect for a buyer. However, in terms of actual intent, you'd have to place it at #1 as it is the only genuine mistake among them. So I'd have to ask - are you listing those in order of criminal intent, or are you listing them in order of their consequences on a buyer?

#1 grading is a matter of opinion and is unlikely to ever be any different. Mint state is an absolute if qualified at a certain magnification as is flat with no detail. Everything in between is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people grade stricter than others, but with a degree of leeway, many grading attempts could be deemed accetable. It is as Peck says, up to the buyer to make their own judgment. As long as individuals maintain a consistent standard of grading, then there is less of a black and white case for claiming a coin is overgraded. Hands cannot be held all the time, so somewhere along the line people need to be responsible for their own actions given nobody is compelled to buy.

#2 & 3 I agree with Peck. If attempting to sell a coin as genuine that you know is a fake, then that is fraud. However, mistakes have been and will be made. The Circular had a copy groat in it a while back which was withdrawn when pointed out. Yesterday's sale had a copy shilling which Richard noticed. It would be irrational to believe these were attempts to defraud anyone, so the situation for most dealers is that they hope they haven't sold/will not sell a copy by mistake. 'there but for the grace of God go I' is probably the feeling of most dealers unless they make a conscious decision to abandon a particular field to avoid any such event occurring. The case of the slabbed copy in the recent thread is unlikely to have been deliberate case to deceive on the part of NGC, rather a case of being out of their depth and trying to make a buck in a series with which they are not familiar. The person submitting it may also not have realised if sold a coin as genuine, however, submitting multiple copies for slabbing would suggest the person is digging a hole for themselves - but how would you prove it?

#4 would be a criminal offence in this country, but I don't believe it is in China. Unless you were to have world-wide control over all industrial production the problem cannot be avoided. The problem therefore is one of fraud committed by people who sell coins knowing they are fakes. You cannot have a totally regulated market when the masses have the ability to set up their own businesses and effectively produce what they want. A thousand years ago when the production of money in this country was delegated to a few individuals at specific locations, you still had nefarious activities taking place whereby the coinage was copied illegally. If it isn't illegal, you can't stop it. The best you can hope for is to have the copies identified (with their own privy marks for identification) and to clamp down hard on individuals who sell copies that aren't clearly so - if necessary by Act of Parliament. This would force ebay's hand in the UK, but wouldn't and couldn't apply worldwide. The danger of regulating in this way would be that it would potentially criminalise a lot of innocent people, whilst at the same time legitimising slabbed fake items because ebay have already given them unquestionable status in the US.

It might seem a bit impotent, but I don't think there is much you can do apart from covering your own backside, both as buyer and seller.

Rob & Peck, we all seem to basically agree over these four different situations. To conclude then:

1. Knowingly over-grading a genuine coin - It's up to the buyer to examine any coin and do whatever research is necessary to make their own judgment. Caveat emptor then.

2. Mistakenly representing a fake or replica coin as being genuine - Mistakes happen. As long as 'amateur' sellers rectify the error when it is pointed out and 'professional' sellers not only rectify the error but also take appropriate corrective steps, then little more can be done.

3. Intentionally misrepresenting a genuine coin as being of a rarer type - Outside the EU or USA little can be done. Within the UK this is a crime. As such crimes are generally perpetrated via eBay then this is where pressure should be applied.

4. Intentionally faking or replicating a coin (the Chinese copies) - Same as 3. above.

Based on the above, I can't believe that, say, the BNTA aren't making representations to eBay over it's handling of potentially illegal acts perpetrated by users and writing to TPGs to agree a process by which incorrectly slabbed coins are properly reported and dealt with.

Many years ago I was involved (Chairman) with a very different trade organisation and we successfully took appropriate steps to protect our member's customers in a comparable way. There's a baton out there that needs to be taken up by a properly organised representative group within British numismatics.

[declanwmagee 122]

The diagram (section of king George V's crown on Canadian coins) was presented to prove a point, there maybe other ways to grading. It was not there to teach someone how it works, so do not assume, it is a bit more complex than that. If your method works, good for you, I respect that, but it did not work for me and I am guessing, it is not working for many others since forums are full of buyers complaining about the grade of their new purchases.

How many of you, picked up a coin in your collection that you had previously graded, and wondered why you attributed that grade and changed it? That is objectivity at its best. Believe me, next time you will take the same coin, you will change its grade ... again. I was fed up always second guessing the grade.

After searching the internet for Mr. Riley's book and I found an excerpt of it. It looks like a great reference book but it uses the same old methodology. People have to guess what grade their coins are, based on pictures. But the things I do liked about this book, pictures are clear and the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy. Thank you, Azda.

I do agree with you that we should basically pass that subject, I am satisfied with my grading skills and do not need to prove anything to anyone.

I think it's a very useful technique, Numidan. I use a similar method with Elizabeth II halfcrowns - close examination of the beads on the crown on the reverse, and I'm sure you could apply the same approach to Vicky jubilee head silver. Most of the time I am trying to compare two coins that are very close to each other in terms of grade - which one to keep and which one to sell, rather than trying to assign a formal grade to a coin, and to highlight areas where you can see the difference between otherwise identically graded coins is very useful. It doesn't go against anything in Derek's excellent book.

We can't have too much information, particularly where grading is concerned.

[Peckris 579]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

That looks great, Numidan! The only thing that sprung to mind was how strike weakness could be factored into the equation? Superb idea though, which for the main part could work!

At the end of the day a grade's a grade! Bag marks, edge knocks, etc, only affect appeal, and consequently value! Would be a very good start to get the grade right!

I'm still trying to work out what the diagrams are of I'm assuming of something that someone could use in grading terms. -5 being good and -50 poor etc. I thought Derek Riley brought out a book for such requirements? Grading is always going to be subjective, no matter how we all think, we've seen it so MANNNNNNY times on this forum where we as experienced collectors do not agree, so we should basically pass that subject by and work on the rest.

The diagram (section of king George V's crown on Canadian coins) was presented to prove a point, there maybe other ways to grading. It was not there to teach someone how it works, so do not assume, it is a bit more complex than that. If your method works, good for you, I respect that, but it did not work for me and I am guessing, it is not working for many others since forums are full of buyers complaining about the grade of their new purchases.

How many of you, picked up a coin in your collection that you had previously graded, and wondered why you attributed that grade and changed it? That is objectivity at its best. Believe me, next time you will take the same coin, you will change its grade ... again. I was fed up always second guessing the grade.

After searching the internet for Mr. Riley's book and I found an excerpt of it. It looks like a great reference book but it uses the same old methodology. People have to guess what grade their coins are, based on pictures. But the things I do liked about this book, pictures are clear and the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy. Thank you, Azda.

I do agree with you that we should basically pass that subject, I am satisfied with my grading skills and do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Your diagram appraoch is certainly different, and I'm sure useful especially with particular features on particular coins. But I'm surprised by your verdict on Derek's book? Far from being the ''same old methodology" it's a radical new approach using photos of all the major UK design types in various states of preservation - just the thing for a beginner, I would have thought. I'm unsure why you think it's lacking? It takes the guesswork OUT of grading, especially for beginners.

Also, you say your diagram approach is to measure "die wear", but surely we are talking coin wear here, not die wear? Die wear is a more subtle thing and shows itself in the quality of the strike, but has to be judged more by the experienced eye, or a helpful dealer.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Peckris

[numidan 0]

My response to point number 1

When I started coin collecting, knowing how to grade became my first priority. You would not believe the time I spent to figure it out. The problem is that the current grading system is purely based on objectivity. Coin grading companies exists so that the current system can be accepted by all. Think about it, we rely on one or two individuals to objectively grade the coins, during their good days and bad days, and by magic, no one will dispute the grade.

When I decided to introduce a scientific approach to grading and tested it out on another forum. Within a week or so, all those that participated were able to evaluate a circulated certified coin and obtain almost the same grade within ½ a grade point. That was not bad considering that objectivity cannot be completely removed. So, I was encouraged to present this method, wow, there is a lot of resistance out there.

Sample of the scientific approach giving a value to different levels of die wear.

So, until an organization standardizes grading and is willing, for example, to enumerate how much bag marks are acceptable for ms65 and list required characteristics, there will always be disagreement and coin grading companies grabbing your money.

Sorry for letting off some steam.

That looks great, Numidan! The only thing that sprung to mind was how strike weakness could be factored into the equation? Superb idea though, which for the main part could work!

At the end of the day a grade's a grade! Bag marks, edge knocks, etc, only affect appeal, and consequently value! Would be a very good start to get the grade right!

I'm still trying to work out what the diagrams are of I'm assuming of something that someone could use in grading terms. -5 being good and -50 poor etc. I thought Derek Riley brought out a book for such requirements? Grading is always going to be subjective, no matter how we all think, we've seen it so MANNNNNNY times on this forum where we as experienced collectors do not agree, so we should basically pass that subject by and work on the rest.

The diagram (section of king George V's crown on Canadian coins) was presented to prove a point, there maybe other ways to grading. It was not there to teach someone how it works, so do not assume, it is a bit more complex than that. If your method works, good for you, I respect that, but it did not work for me and I am guessing, it is not working for many others since forums are full of buyers complaining about the grade of their new purchases.

How many of you, picked up a coin in your collection that you had previously graded, and wondered why you attributed that grade and changed it? That is objectivity at its best. Believe me, next time you will take the same coin, you will change its grade ... again. I was fed up always second guessing the grade.

After searching the internet for Mr. Riley's book and I found an excerpt of it. It looks like a great reference book but it uses the same old methodology. People have to guess what grade their coins are, based on pictures. But the things I do liked about this book, pictures are clear and the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy. Thank you, Azda.

I do agree with you that we should basically pass that subject, I am satisfied with my grading skills and do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Your diagram appraoch is certainly different, and I'm sure useful especially with particular features on particular coins. But I'm surprised by your verdict on Derek's book? Far from being the ''same old methodology" it's a radical new approach using photos of all the major UK design types in various states of preservation - just the thing for a beginner, I would have thought. I'm unsure why you think it's lacking? It takes the guesswork OUT of grading, especially for beginners.

Also, you say your diagram approach is to measure "die wear", but surely we are talking coin wear here, not die wear? Die wear is a more subtle thing and shows itself in the quality of the strike, but has to be judged more by the experienced eye, or a helpful dealer.

You are right Peckris, I did write die wear but I meant coin wear. Sorry for the confusion.

It might have not come out right but I did credit Derek's work by writing that I liked the fact that "the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy".

[scott 145]

better available online resources would help.

we can buy books on varietes Etc, but those are expensive so a lot of people will not have the access to the information on die types, let alone distinguish 1 from another (epsecially when its such a tiny differance)let alone find the few online pictures of such.

perhaps we can start doing that here? links to good sites to view Varieties, etc a bigger resource pool people can access.

we have a book on grading, which i have, and use, as i feel it is more or less spot on, we can forget orgnaisations, especially as they use the US system.

as for fakes.

here is a solution, a fair few people have found fakes and shown why they are fakes, now there is NOTHING (and if thier is its not easy to find) that shows common fakes and how to spot them, we know about china and thier fakes which people have identified here, perhaps it is time we had that facility.

people will try to pull the wool, other times it is a genuine mistake, but sometimes its knowledge that is the problem. education is key. if such a site was put together and then put in the infomration on ebay (you know, there is a bit with articles) it would be a lot harder for the conners, to con, and the people buying can make up thier own mind.

[Peckris 579]

better available online resources would help.

we can buy books on varietes Etc, but those are expensive so a lot of people will not have the access to the information on die types, let alone distinguish 1 from another (epsecially when its such a tiny differance)let alone find the few online pictures of such.

perhaps we can start doing that here? links to good sites to view Varieties, etc a bigger resource pool people can access.

we have a book on grading, which i have, and use, as i feel it is more or less spot on, we can forget orgnaisations, especially as they use the US system.

as for fakes.

here is a solution, a fair few people have found fakes and shown why they are fakes, now there is NOTHING (and if thier is its not easy to find) that shows common fakes and how to spot them, we know about china and thier fakes which people have identified here, perhaps it is time we had that facility.

people will try to pull the wool, other times it is a genuine mistake, but sometimes its knowledge that is the problem. education is key. if such a site was put together and then put in the infomration on ebay (you know, there is a bit with articles) it would be a lot harder for the conners, to con, and the people buying can make up thier own mind.

The problem is, some of the Chinese fakes are so good, the only way to spot a particular one is when two coins turn up with EXACTLY the same blemishes/minor spots, etc. The first would fool an expert. The second, side by side with the first, would show they are both fakes taken from the same original. There's no way to cover those, and they are the biggest menace, in my book.

[Gary D 76]

The problem is, some of the Chinese fakes are so good, the only way to spot a particular one is when two coins turn up with EXACTLY the same blemishes/minor spots, etc. The first would fool an expert. The second, side by side with the first, would show they are both fakes taken from the same original. There's no way to cover those, and they are the biggest menace, in my book.

You worry about the Chinese minting funny money, they couldn't hold a candle to this current government.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Gary D

[Red Riley 2]

You are right Peckris, I did write die wear but I meant coin wear. Sorry for the confusion.

It might have not come out right but I did credit Derek's work by writing that I liked the fact that "the author did not use a one size fits all philosophy".

No wonder you found the book hard to find, it's Derek Allen, Red Riley is my forum name. For some reason Dave always gets it wrong!

I certainly don't take any offence, numidan, I think anything which adds to the potential store of knowledge available to collectors, particularly with reference to grading is a good thing but the vagaries of coins are such that I don't believe anything is going to solve the problem absolutely 100%. What more recent joiners to this site may not know is that my book was the outcome of a thread, very much like this one back in I believe 2008 when we were all moaning about the poor standards of grading, especially on E-Bay and somebody suggested a comprehensive pictorial guide to grading. I stuck my head above the parapet and the rest, as they say, is history. I would like to think that it improved the standard of internet grading but the jury is still deliberating at taxpayers' expense on that one...

Edited October 1, 2012 by Red Riley

[Red Riley 2]

better available online resources would help.

we can buy books on varietes Etc, but those are expensive so a lot of people will not have the access to the information on die types, let alone distinguish 1 from another (epsecially when its such a tiny differance)let alone find the few online pictures of such.

perhaps we can start doing that here? links to good sites to view Varieties, etc a bigger resource pool people can access.

we have a book on grading, which i have, and use, as i feel it is more or less spot on, we can forget orgnaisations, especially as they use the US system.

as for fakes.

here is a solution, a fair few people have found fakes and shown why they are fakes, now there is NOTHING (and if thier is its not easy to find) that shows common fakes and how to spot them, we know about china and thier fakes which people have identified here, perhaps it is time we had that facility.

people will try to pull the wool, other times it is a genuine mistake, but sometimes its knowledge that is the problem. education is key. if such a site was put together and then put in the infomration on ebay (you know, there is a bit with articles) it would be a lot harder for the conners, to con, and the people buying can make up thier own mind.

The problem is, some of the Chinese fakes are so good, the only way to spot a particular one is when two coins turn up with EXACTLY the same blemishes/minor spots, etc. The first would fool an expert. The second, side by side with the first, would show they are both fakes taken from the same original. There's no way to cover those, and they are the biggest menace, in my book.

What makes it more dangerous these days is that the original Chinese fakes have now been sold on two or three times since which results in a lack of alarm bells ringing when these forgeries come up for sale.